Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Arthur Green

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Arthur Green

Having just one event in the news violates BLP and What Wikipedia is not. Fails WP:BIO. Eliz81 21:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a tabloid to have articles on every sordid event which gets 2 mentions in the news. Edison 21:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom Green was covered more than a couple of times. For example: "No tidy stereotype; Polygamists: Tale of two families", L.A. Times, May 13, 1988, (an early example of Tom Green's self-promotion—in the 1990's he appeared on a half dozen daytime talk shows, stirring up publicity which, he says, lead to his being singled out for prosecution); "Polygamists in Utah may be facing increased pressure from prosecutors as anti-polygamy activists push for an end to the practice", NPR, 1999; New York Times 2001 (his conviction was covered everywhere—very notable because no bigamist had been convicted in decades); "Reuters:Utah Polygamist Sentenced for Rape of Child - Wife", in the Orlando Sentinel among others; "Husbands and Wives: Tom Green Speaks from Prison", a 2003 special on Dateline NBC; "Polygamist cites ruling on sodomy; Utah man fights for his five wives", Washington Times, 2003 (Green analogized polygamy to gay marriage, which conservative pundits jumped on); "Attorney general hopefuls spar in Dixie", Deseret Morning News, 2004 (his prosecution was politically controversial); "Bigamy law debated", Deseret News, 2005 Cool Hand Luke 05:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided I have mixed opinions on this, and the premis of the deletion nomination (one act). Lee Harey Oswald is relevant for two related criminal acts on the same day which gained national recognition but otherwise is not notable. This guy has performed two criminal acts (the second two marriages) which got national recognition (albeit less than LHO). The man clearly is not relevant, but the case might be. I would support the information under a different title or as part of an article on polygamy. But I won't dispute this AdD. --Kevin Murray 22:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Not every criminal needs a Wikipedia entry, and there is no indication of why this individual or his case are any more significant than any other random bigamist. Resolute 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The random polygamist does not go to jail. He was the first in many years, and is one of only two currently serving time. Cool Hand Luke 05:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute. I understand Kevin Murray's reference, but this individual will hardly have the cultural or historical impact that LHO's two most notorious crimes (he had more, I believe) did. Regardless, he's mentioned here and that's enough. Douglasmtaylor 00:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Normally in this case I would agree with you guys, but I feel this person and his legal problems are notable. Mormon Fundalmentalism is very notable lately as are the recent court cases and the HBO series Big Love.. I would like to see this article kept for that reason. Maybe even expanded. Callelinea 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- that Mormon funtamentalism is/might be notable does not argue that this individual is notable. Resolute 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn bigamist. So? Clarityfiend 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of documentary One man, six wives, and twenty-nine children which was reviewed in one of Britain's leading newspapers. (http://www.dfgdocs.com/Directory/Titles/949.aspx) Bigdaddy1981 01:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep solely based on the documentary - I think it gives "historical notability" as required by WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 02:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added mention of the film and added two sources for it. Bigdaddy1981 02:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the documentary and the several years of coverage of the case and its interrelation with Utah politics. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some more references from over those several years would be persuasive in keeping this. --Kevin Murray 04:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This individual is famous for being basically the first polygamist criminally charged in decades. His conviction has political significance in Utah and is of enduring note (for example, see this retrospective of the attorney general who prosecuted him). Hell, PBS couldn't make a four-hour documentary on Mormonism without mentioning him. "Tom Green and polygam!" yields 1098 hits in lexisnexis news. This article needs improvement, but Tom Green did not drop from the public's consciousness in 2002. Cool Hand Luke 05:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - primary subject of a film is a definite keep. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear all, thank you for your work in contributing to the article, especially with regard to notability and references. The documentary certainly sounds notable, but for the reasons I cited in my article nomination, I'm still hesitant to assume notability for the subject depicted in the documentary. Perhaps a new page could be created about the documentary, while discussing all the backstory contained in the current article, and Thomas Arthur Green could redirect there? Eliz81 21:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's backwards. I'm hesitant to assume notability for a documentary. Few people have heard of it (I certainly hadn't), and even imdb doesn't appear to have an entry for it. But "Tom Green" is a household name in Utah. The documentary should redirect here. Cool Hand Luke 00:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm with Luke, the man is more notable than the doc. - the film merely serves to show his notability. Green is well known in Utah and indeed has substantial name recognition outside the state --- and not just in Mormon circles. Bigdaddy1981 17:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable legal (criminal law) case. Bearian 18:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Green is (in)famous. He was charged with not only bigamy, but child rape. Was featured in many national news outlets many times. First modern prosecution for polygamy. Mormon Fundamentalism is big news with the Jeffs case.66.218.190.100 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly has had ongoing notability. I note that the subject had "practically dared prosecutors to go after him by appearing on TV talk shows such as Sally Jesse Raphael's, saying that his lifestyle was a constitutional right." [1] So the normal BLP related arguments about privacy are clearly inapplicable. (While crystal ballish and thus now irrelevant to my argument, it also makes it likely that there will be ongoing future publicity involving this individual.) GRBerry 20:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : first subject of a prosecution of a polygamist in Utah for decades; subject of a documentary film; has appeared on numerous TV talk shows, including SJR and Jerry Springer; a face to the world of Mormon Fundamentalism--Keep. (Side issue: Maybe rename though, since he's known as "Tom Green" in most sources. Tom Green (polygamist) or Tom Green (Mormon fundamentalist))? –SESmith 08:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "NOT NEWS" argument does not fly, this person has also been the subject of a documentary as well. Burntsauce 18:33, 20 July 2007 (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.