Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John P. Brosnahan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Brosnahan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators Donald Albury 22:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a news item. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs to be re-written and properly sourced. But it does pass WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - What I found was a bunch of local coverage, but nothing to indicate wider notice was taken of this crime. If you found such coverage, I'm always open to changing my mind based on sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article is about a person, and the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) apply, and in particular, the criteria given in the Crime victims and perpetrators section of that guideline. Note also the section People notable for only one event in Wikipedia:Notability (events) guideline, which states, People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead. -- Donald Albury 20:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This event fails the criteria of WP:EVENT. All of the news coverage was local, routine coverage, and the coverage appears to have petered out after a week. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There is more coverage, AND the police officer/killer is a close friend of the DA, I think this is worth keeping as it's all factual and we need to get this out for our own justice. The police have LOST evidence and are covering it up. PLEASE. It's all truthful, and many people (thousands of people attended these services, it is NOT routine, the City of Cambridge Named a Square after the Pizzuto family before this incident. They are very prominent business owners in Cambridge, lifelong residents, and supporters of politics. are finding comfort that it's there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbtold112 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Truthbtold112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While I sympathize with Truthbtold's plight as the child of one of the victims of this crime, clearly this editor has an agenda to address regarding this crime. While that may well be appopriate, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to assist them in pursuing this agenda. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Author is trying to make this event more notable than it is and admits to WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COI. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2012
- The only agenda is for the truth to be posted for the record, anything not truthful can be removed. This perpetrator worked for the state department at the time of his death, no publisher with an 'agenda' will publish the truth because of the concern of political backlash. I though wikipedia was a place for the truth, if that isn't the case, that's a shame. This man committed a heinous crime and it should be significant as there has been a rash of violent killings in MA committed by police officers. What about the public interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by contribs) 17:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The opening paragraph of the essay Wikipedia:Truth seems highly relevant here.

Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether the material is factually correct. This is important to bear in mind when writing about topics on which you as a contributor have a strong opinion; you might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave. We cannot be the correctors and educators of the world. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

-- Whpq (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks, I assume you'll delete the page. I can't start a blog or anything, it's an open investigation. I was just hoping that the confirmed facts could be posted somewhere, for people to reference, but if that isn't the case, that's too bad. I don't have a 'favorite view' on a murderer- I don't think that's possible. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything- just list actual facts like names, dates, locations, occupations, etc, but thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbtold112 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Truthbtold's comment above, "I can't start a blog or anything, it's an open investigation," calls into question whether anything in this article that isn't sourced to a reliable secondary source should be in the article. Ultimately, it comes down to verifiability, and it doesn't look like there's enough published information to warrant an article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No national coverage and, sorry to say, an enormous conflict-of-interest problem. City Of Silver 19:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
. Given the personal involvement of the families of the victims and of the subject, it would be best to delete this article as quickly as possible. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Received this message from Truthbtold112: "It isn't enough that you killed everyone? It's unbelievable that you need the last word too. Go for it, delete all of the facts and lie if that's what it takes to live with yourself. We all know you are lying.Truthbtold112 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC) (Truthbetold161 and Herewegoto are the same user.)"

When will this page be deleted per the request of moderators requests above???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbetold161 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.