Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 March 25

Bruce McMahan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This subject is gaining more and more notability online and in print media. There are numerous reputable outlets reporting on the original subject. The subject has been reported on; using a complete and thorough review of filed court documents in multiple US state courts. There is no reason that this article should not exist; considering the notable active philanthropy and notoriety of the subject. I strongly urge and request a review of the original deletion on the grounds that any questions about the subject's notability have now become untenable.

^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]} MrBumkee (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. A few news reports and some primary source court documents are not enough for us to sustain an article, especially on a living person. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse. The proffered sources are not independent secondary source coverage. Sourcing standards must be stringently adhered to for the such a WP:BLP troublesome topic. In general, individual crime stories are not encyclopedic. One indicator is the lack of relevance to any other article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• endorse per Phil. The bar for a so purely negative WP:BLP is not met by the sources provided. Hobit (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Staying clear of this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse I'll go further: creating an article based on those sources would be an extremely bad idea. Court records in particular are explicitly forbidden as sources by WP:BLPPRIMARY. If someone's only "claim to fame" is allegations like these then we shouldn't have an article on them unless the case is very high profile. This isn't nearly enough. Hut 8.5 15:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse per above - this is not anywhere near enough to overturn, even though the AfD is over a decade old now. SportingFlyer T·C 08:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• I think I might start an essay called "What BLP doesn't say". Our BLP policy says to remove unsourced negative content about living people. It doesn't say to remove well-sourced content about living people, and astronomically highly-paid individuals in aspirational positions who, according to a court of law, have sex with their daughters, shouldn't be able to whitewash their Wikipedia articles. If there was exactly one more source that I could even remotely pretend was reliable, I'd be recommending an overturn here.—S Marshall T/C 12:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BLPCRIME recommends we shouldn't include material accusing living non-public figures of committing crimes unless they've been convicted. The subject here isn't a public figure and doesn't appear to have been convicted of anything. Also WP:CRIMINAL says we shouldn't have articles on people who are mainly known for committing crimes unless either the victim of the crime is high profile or the crime is important enough to constitute a historic event, neither of those applies here. Hut 8.5 16:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)