Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Lawson

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Lawson

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

Completely unsourced, has been for years. The one "reference" is a website selling a book. The book does not sound impartial. Article has a dedicated speculations and rumour section. Not cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is clearly notable and there are other sources and it appears in newspaper archives. This book is semi-rare and kept isolated in Reference rooms under the eyes of librarians because copies were often stolen. Subject of song "The Murder of the Lawson Family" by Stanley Brothers. Article 1, Article 2, Documentary, This book and this one in addition to the one in the article. There is also wide coverage in sources of that era, particularly contemporary newspapers (not immediately online). Very disappointed that the nominator made zero effort in finding sources.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm disappointed that nobody else had ever made an effort, until you came along. You wouldn't be here if I hadn't nominated it. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You wouldn't be here if I hadn't nominated it." We don't want to be here. That reply reveals an ignorance of the deletion process. Please study WP:BEFORE and take note of Part B. Carry out these checks, #2 "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." and Part D. "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform."

Filing AfD's without doing your due diligence is unacceptable and if you make a habit of it, it may be seen as disruptive. Do this again and we'll be seeking out a ban from you filing another AfD. Your nomination is lazy.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy or not, it was far more productive than slapping a "Multiple issues" tag on a piece of original research, and calling it a day for over six years. These things should be deleted, and brought back after someone drafts a reasonably proper article. Leaving it up till whenever that is doesn't make sense. Just sends the message that verifiability and notabilty are merely preferred, and publishing garbage is Wikipedia's second choice. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't productive. Trying now to belittle my editing when you have done nothing to improve the article at all? You're in no position to critique as you've done nothing to fix it. But we'll see what others think of your actions as this AfD runs its course.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to belittle your editing, I didn't even know you touched the page. I'm just saying the article is garbage, and this clearly led to sources appearing on the Talk Page. Those make it a little better, so it was productive. I'd bet this survives an AfD, so if you want to clean that turd up using those sources, you'll be undoubtedly more productive than I've been. I'm not looking to win a contest or make an enemy here. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - zero effort nom. notable per WP:GNG--BabbaQ (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article could be improved, because there are sources that could help it now. I suspect the article was written when there was less online than now. (I hear that in the early days, state historical societies were only spotty in their online sourcing and people used to have to rely on paper.) However, this is an infamous crime from a time when the nation could be shocked by a murder. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So that they don't get lost, I added some of the links above to the talk page for the article. LaMona (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2015 (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.