Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyndham Lathem

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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wyndham Lathem[edit]

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

Seems like a non-notable (unfortunately, in some ways) person catching (again unfortunate) attention from a crime. Not News. Anmccaff (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Anmccaff (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable researcher into Yersinia pestis (the Black Death plague) which the article focuses on. One line only given to his alleged crime. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet no one noticed him before he was accused of murder, and his professional colleagues appear to be a vasty sea of red. Whassup with that? Anmccaff (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS "as creator" might be a good thing to mention near "keep." Anmccaff (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being accused of murder does tend to bring one to prominence. There's only one red link in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it tends to bring one notoriety, and these aren't the same thing. The red links aren't in the article...they're in the sources. None of his many colleagues mentioned in six papers, @Xxanthippe: appear to have articles on them that I've found so far. The Stat piece that @Ritchie333: cited has the same problem. So, however true it may be that his work should have merited an article, in practice he's here because he's accused of murdering his boyfriend. BTW, that "accused" part does a real disservice to readers in areas where practical measures are taken to keep stuff low-key while still sub judice; Wiki is very much like the Daily Mail in this regard. Anmccaff (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You used the word accused above first. I used alleged. Neither are used in the article which has one sentence on the subject for exactly the reason you suggest, that it would be wrong to speculate at this stage. I am not interested in the crime, I haven't even read the details. I am interested in his research into the Black Death bacterium and that is what his notability turns on. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Pestis research is your main interest, then why are all those other researchers so missing on Wiki? Nope, this article's presence comes back to crime-driven notoriety. I suppose you can argue this might elevate the average yut searching for blood or dirt about the case, but that doesn't seem like a good reason to give undue attention to one researcher. Anmccaff (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Got one James E. Darnell! Anmccaff (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another! A stub for William [E.] Goldman as Bill Goldman (microbiologist). Think it'll get to 10%? coverage? Anmccaff (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. seven papers with over 100 GS cites passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - it does look like a WP:BLP1E on a first glance, but a search for news sources reveals several (eg: [1], [2]) that have nothing to do with the latest criminal shenannigans. If we can write a balanced article that does not violate WP:BLPCRIME, it should be kept. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tenured professor who was fired for personal reasons prior to his trial, regardless of his research output.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if the creation of the article was spurred by the recent notoriety, he passes various unconnected notability thresholds for academics. There shouldn't be any reason to care about the inspiration for article creation if the resulting article is suitable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:32, 11 August 2017 (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.