Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Dale Lucas

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. SarahStierch (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Dale Lucas[edit]

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

Fails N/CA. WP:NOTNEWS also applies.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC) ...William 14:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the original editor of the article. Jordan Dale Lucas is notable. The article has multiple reliable sources from reputable news organizations. Jordan Dale Lucas received one of the harshest sentences for animal cruelty in Canadian history. In addition, the cruelty inflicted on animals are some of the worst in Canadian history. Lucas has been discussed in the media across Canada for his behavior. This makes Jordan Lucas notable and the animal cruelty incidents notable. This article should not be deleted. IQ125 (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any large protest or petition signing, any stronger laws passed, any lasting effect? Dream Focus 14:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA all apply. Not notable. Giant Snowman 15:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, per WP:BLP1E considerations, and per general notability questions. Sadly, acts of animal cruelty are not rare: but then neither are many other acts of violence. Wikipedia isn't here to put the world to rights, and criminal acts which lead to 17-month prison sentences are rarely notable enough to merit an article concerning the perpetrator. I can see no evidence that this event has any enduring notability, and without this, the article simply can't be justified. To be specific, Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons states that "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article" and that "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources", and on those grounds, the article should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Textbook WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a place to shame people. We can never have an encyclopedic biography of this person, because we will never know more about them than "they were cruel to a dog and were convicted and imprisoned." At best, the *event* might be notable, not the person. But that would support a page on the event, not an alleged "biography" which isn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman, AndyTheGrump and NorthBySouthBaranof. This person does not have international front page coverage, or enduring coverage.Martin451 (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Disgusting as the crime is, the article doesn't meet notability guidelines. Shadowjams (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability guidelines p b p 23:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. As sad as acts of animal cruelty may be, they're not in and of themselves sufficient to make a person notable enough to be permanently included in an encyclopedia, except in extraordinary circumstances which I don't see being claimed here. Public shaming of criminals is not what we're here for. Bearcat (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2013 (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.