Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Shanley

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) KCVelaga (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Shanley

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP1E/WP:BLPCRIME issue. We already have an article on the crimes, this "biography" is just a discussion of the role and conviction of one defendant, with no other details about him.. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of independent WP:RS. Also, this is not just allegations (WP:BLPCRIME); According to the article, the priest was convicted and is seeking a new trial. I'm not sure what the proposed merge location, but I see no reason to merge giving the amount of independentWP:RS referring to this specific individual. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are there other than about the crime? I can see all kinds of reasons for covering this in the article in Catholic Church sexual abuse cases, or even a spin out of the Boston cases specifically, but this is purported to be a biography. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with renaming it to be about the legal case, in a name similar to Jacob Zuma rape trial, Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_cases, and others found here. I agree that the WP:RS is more about the case than about the person. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand the sections on his earlier life. Paul Shanley first gained fame in the 1970s, long before he was arrested. He was in the news a lot in the 70s and 80s for opposing the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality, and for his open support of pedophilia. The article alludes to this briefly. The only objection to this article is basically its heavy focus on his later trial and conviction, but there's an easy way to fix that: just go into more detail about his earlier activities. I can add some material. GBRV (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GBRV: Thanks for the comment. I might strike my comment about renaming if you can show me some good sources that show that his earlier life is notable too. I did notice it in the first article I looked at some mention of his earlier life, but the titles of nearly all the others seemed to be about the trial. That made me shift to the idea of making the article on the legal case rather than the person. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim - Even some (or many) of the articles sparked by the trial also mention his earlier life; for example, this Boston Globe article goes into extensive detail: [1] GBRV (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements made since nom. Clearly notable per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If a perp gets this sort of coverage in 2017 - [2][3][4] (and several other national outlets) - when he gets released from prison (never mind coverage media in the case itself, and in books[5], etc.) - then he's clearly independently notable from Catholic Archdiocese of Boston sex abuse scandal.Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep far too much WP:SIGCOV to make deletion plausible.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2018 (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.