Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 July 10.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. ÷seresin 07:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL are the applicable policies. News sourcing does not extend beyond the event and trial itself. Ray^Talk 01:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One event. Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received significant, long-term, national coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and WP:BLP#1E does not apply because article's subject is dead. A great multitude of reliable sources from national media outlets over the course of an entire year (murder occurred in July 2008 and is still being discussed in the media today, June 2009). The alleged jury nullification of an alleged hate crime has provoked significant, obviously notable controversy. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelo Lucero and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_6#Marcelo_Lucero, where we just covered a similar situation. To compare this article to a memorial or claim it was just a passing incident is absurd. The media and the American public decided that Natalee Holloway was notable, thus she is; they have decided the same of Luis Ramirez, and so he is, if not even more so due to the legal and hate crime factors involved. The vast number sources over such a lengthy span of time speak for themselves. TAway (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Just because someone was the victim of a crime covered in the news doesn't mean that person should be given an article.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) — Dino Velvet 8MM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I note my disagreement with TAway's tagging of Dino Velvet in this manner. Dino is a relatively new user, true, but he has edited on a variety of topics and commented on multiple other AfDs. To suggest that he is a single purpose user with no interests outside of this AfD is misleading. Ray^Talk 21:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because he is dead, but WP:BIO1E still does. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in WP:BIO1E prescribes deletion in a case like this, and this article is in no way different that an AfD should contradict the "keep" decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelo Lucero and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_6#Marcelo_Lucero. Have you actually read the policy you are linking to? 04:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep WP:BIO1E doesn't apply. The event has obviously sparked the interest of enough members of the community in a time of continuous violence that could ignite social policy changes and/or Legislation. dhoyos (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E and per nom. Policy is clear. Enigma^msg 18:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in WP:BIO1E prescribes deletion in a case like this, and this article is in no way different that an AfD should contradict the "keep" decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelo Lucero and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_6#Marcelo_Lucero. Have you actually read the policy you are linking to? 04:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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.