Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kermit Gosnell: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:42, 12 April 2013

←KEEP!!===Kermit Gosnell===

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

I think this page should be deleted for several reasons. First, it is about a living, alleged perpetrator. Per WP:BIO, "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Second, this person does not meet other notability criteria. His case has not received national attention. It is a local multiple-murder story in Pennsylvania, nothing more. Mellie107 (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep 369,000 Google Search hits for the subject[1], with stories in major national outlets. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
snow keep There is plenty of coverage about this subject. I could see renaming the article, possibly, but the way to handle any WP:BIO issues is to edit the article, not delete it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 12. Snotbot t • c » 04:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Very significant international coverage. Easily meets WP:CRIMINAL. Mkdw ^talk 07:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRIMINAL clearly advises "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Article can be recreated if a conviction is secured. - Dravecky (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is met and this incident has received serious coverage and consideration even in the case of no conviction yet. Secondly, that instruction is a cautionary note on the bottom, but not meant to supersede criteria #2: Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. His investigation has be so widely noted that using a lack of conviction, which also does not preclude articles of that type to not be created, would be borderline "asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express" -WP:WL. But I certainly understand your point. Mkdw ^talk 07:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the trial is a current event, how can there be coverage "which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage"? By definition, it's all contemporaneous for now. - Dravecky (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuntely the 2013 trial coverage is only a small fraction of the coverage the article relies on in which in 2011 broke onto the international stage. Two very different in nature, separated by years , and in the legal world of criminal investigations, a lengthy period of time to even reach pleas, with strong inductors that this has already affected state policies, political senate campaigns, and some calling it the most horrific case of feticide. Mkdw ^talk 12:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Jayarathina (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its also part of a wider debate on Abortion and does not relate solely to the criminal case but could also involve a large discussion by both pro choice and pro life advocates as to abortion providers (im sure the discourse exists specific to him and ill go find it but I wasnt up for adding to the article unless a decision has been made and as im not an experienced wiki user im not sure what the layout of a BIO requires etc) --Fredbobhurst (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - Fredbobhurst stated it perfectly. TJIC (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP This very deletion request is a WP:NPOV violation. This story has been supressed, and needs to be brought to light. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 13:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This story is very important because the main stream media refuses to cover it. It involves alleged of beheading babies that survived abortions and people searching may only find this article since there are barely any stories from the major news outlets. ClassicallyLiberal (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of sources from reliable groups. Details are gruesome enough that this goes beyond a 'local crime story' (Jodi Arias, anyone?). No reason to delete other than to suppress a less-than-favorable instance regarding abortion. Toa Nidhiki05 13:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite majorly. At present the article flagrantly violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV - we are not a tabloid news outlet. I'd recommend stubbifying the page to a bare minimum of sourced biographical detail and a mention of the trial, with the prospect of expansion in the future if and only if a conviction is secure. Otherwise, we might as well be working for The Sun. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that this article is even being considered for deletion speaks to the idiocy and ideological blinders of some Wikipedia administrators/editors. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Luke Sneeringer (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a significant story affecting a major matter of national policy, irrespective of specific media coverage. It deserves to remain; deleting it sends a far stronger message than leaving it in. WesternActor (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe you should keep the page but only refer to known facts, like his name - occupation - and what he has been charged with and why. I don't think you should use quotes from victims and/or possible witnesses at this point until the trial is under way and it is public knowledge. I am not trying to protect him, but don't think it is Wikipedia's job to report the news, just the facts.Terryoaka (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Terry you are misinformed - "at this point" the trial has been in session since March 18 "until the trial is under way" it is underway! Perhaps the reason you're unaware is "and it is public knowledge." because of a blatant media blackout (refer to twitter #Gosnell) and the discomfiture of the location of the crime scene -- not in some obscure slum 'hood section of the Philly Badlands -- 15 minute walking distance from U Penn Wharton Drexel University_of_the_Sciences (former Philadelphia College of Pharmacy (PCP), the first college of pharmacy in the nation)? People knew this place existed close to the rail station easy to for out of towners like Karnamaya Mongar to find, and then... die there. MrsKrishan (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP as long as 2012 Aurora Shooting is considered apt. Perhapts it should be renamed to the crime rather than the accused? -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it might make sense to rename this to be about the crime, and not a bio about Gosnell. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article in its current state contains many violations of WP:BLP. These should be immediately removed. — goethean 16:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP First, Dr. Gosnell has had his licensed revoked in one state, suspended in another, and surrendered in a third state. Thus, at least one final action by an adjudicating body has occurred. Moreover, all three medical boards have found Gosnell to be a public threat. Thus, despite a lack of CRIMINAL conviction (yet), this man has been adjudicated as a threat to the public safety and welfare of three states by medical boards. Second, this is no more a local crime issue than Trayvon Martin or the Connecticut school shooting, which are covered by Wiki. Third, abortion regulation is a national and even international discussion. Fourth, the facts behind Gosnell's licensure revocation(s) and criminal trial have been suppressed by the USA mainstream liberal media, but not by other media outlets, as evidenced by hundreds of thousands of Google hits. Fifth, cherry picked deletions of "uncomfortable" (to a liberal) subjects such as this negative abortion entry would reveal political bias on Wiki's part, and in that case I and my friends would like our donations to Wiki returned.
Keep The article is not about a particular person who has been accused of a local crime of transient notoriety but about the well documented facts surrounding the involvement of a person in the ensuing investigation of an event of demonstrable historical significance and international notoriety. Whether or not there has been a "suppression of information in the media" is irrelevant to this purpose; this type of allegation itself should not be speculated upon or even mentioned unless it is otherwise independently verified and well sourced (a perceived lack of coverage in a segment of the media or on any regional scale does not itself invalidate the notability otherwise proven). The issue is not about "bringing a suppressed story to light" (WP:NOTNEWS) but the encyclopedic documentation of the enduringly notable person and event ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events."). Jim Reed (Talk) 16:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 *:Yeah, I think it might make sense to rename this to be about the crime, and not a bio about Gosnell. [[User:ErikHaugen|ErikHaugen]] <small>([[User talk:ErikHaugen|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/ErikHaugen|contribs]])</small> 16:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 *'''Comment'''. Article in its current state contains many violations of [[WP:BLP]]. These should be immediately removed. &mdash; [[User:Goethean|goethean]] 16:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
-*'''STRONG KEEP''' First, Dr. Gosnell has had his licensed revoked in one state, suspended in another, and surrendered in a third state.  Thus, at least one final action by an adjudicating body has occurred.  Moreover, all three medical boards have found Gosnell to be a public threat.  Thus, despite a lack of CRIMINAL conviction (yet), this man has been adjudicated as a threat to the public safety and welfare of three states by medical boards.  Second, this is no more a local crime issue than Trayvon Martin or the Connecticut school shooting, which are covered by Wiki.  Third, abortion regulation is a national and even international discussion.  Fourth, the facts behind Gosnell's licensure revocation(s) and criminal trial have been suppressed by the media.  Fifth, cherry picked deletions of "uncomfortable" (to a liberal) subjects such as this negative abortion entry would reveal political bias on Wiki's part, and in that case I and my friends would like our donations to Wiki returned.
+*'''STRONG KEEP''' First, Dr. Gosnell has had his licensed revoked in one state, suspended in another, and surrendered in a third state.  Thus, at least one final action by an adjudicating body has occurred.  Moreover, all three medical boards have found Gosnell to be a public threat.  Thus, despite a lack of CRIMINAL conviction (yet), this man has been adjudicated as a threat to the public safety and welfare of three states by medical boards.  Second, this is no more a local crime issue than Trayvon Martin or the Connecticut school shooting, which are covered by Wiki.  Third, abortion regulation is a national and even international discussion.  Fourth, the facts behind Gosnell's licensure revocation(s) and criminal trial have been suppressed by the USA mainstream liberal media, but not by other media outlets, as evidenced by hundreds of thousands of Google hits.  Fifth, cherry picked deletions of "uncomfortable" (to a liberal) subjects such as this negative abortion entry would reveal political bias on Wiki's part, and in that case I and my friends would like our donations to Wiki returned.
 *'''Keep''' The article is not about a particular person who has been accused of a local crime of transient notoriety but about the well documented facts surrounding the involvement of a person in the ensuing investigation of an event of demonstrable historical significance and international notoriety. Whether or not there has been a "suppression of information in the media" is irrelevant to this purpose; this type of allegation itself should not be speculated upon or even mentioned unless it is otherwise independently verified and well sourced (a perceived lack of coverage in a segment of the media or on any regional scale does not itself invalidate the notability otherwise proven). The issue is not about "bringing a suppressed story to light" ([[WP:NOTNEWS]]) but the encyclopedic documentation of the enduringly notable person and event ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events."). [[User:James Arthur Reed|<font style="color:white;background:black;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Jim Reed&nbsp;'''</font>]][[User talk:James Arthur Reed|<font style="color:white;background:black;font-family:sans-serif;">(Talk)&nbsp;</font>]] 16:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)