Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:10, 3 January 2009

Robert Eric Wone

Robert Eric Wone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Egregious violation of not only WP:BLP when it comes to the individuals named, but also violation of WP:BLP1E when it comes to Wone himself. He wasn't notable before he died, he still isn't notable. His death is not notable, either. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the names of the other individuals involved are also redirects to this article. I tried db-blp deleting the lot, but my tags were removed. Remove all of them if this is upheld. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please WP:RfD those separately, as there's a specific alternate venue for deleting redirects. If the article is deleted, the redirects should be deleted as routine maintenance, but it's possible that the redirects (from the suspects' names) could be deleted while the article is kept. Jclemens (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename to Murder of Robert Eric Wone, as Speedy decliner on the redirects. I will stipulate that Wone was not notable prior to his murder, but the event and its aftermath are still getting press more than two years later. There are several additional RS not yet added to the article which are referenced in the BLP/N thread--I'll add them soon. Jclemens (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has been substantially expanded and cited per my above promise to do so. It's still a bit rough, but there's plenty more coverage to add, if anyone else wants to pitch in. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename per Jclemens. A quick Google News search brings up loads of articles on it in just the past month, and taken together with the stuff written about it at the time that adds up to significant coverage and therefore notability. BLP1E is alleviated by the rename, and the only other potential for BLP concern I can see is that there's no cite given directly to the Affadavit section which talks about their sexual relationships. That paragraph should be sourced or removed, but the whole article needn't be deleted for that. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I've removed one statement I couldn't find a source for immediately and cited the rest of that paragraph. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or rename per above - Possibly could be notable enough before murder, but murder is one of more unusal in DC history, so rename at least. Thank you, --Tom 16:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —- ✰ALLST☆R✰ 22:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, do not rename - Of course this is notable. It has received considerable coverage in the DC, gay and Asian American press. It should not be renamed as the standard for such incidents where the victim was not notable is to name the victim, thus Rodney King not Beating and trial of attackers of Rodney King and Vincent Chin not Beating and death of Vincent Chin. This case suffers from a distinct lack of coverage outside of DC, LGBT and Asian American outlets, precisely because of the sensitive topics covered by the incident. The nominator has even removed the name of the victim from list of murders in August 2006, which I choose not to contest, but nevertheless object to. This would set a very, very bad precedent which has the effect of helping to keep case like in obscurity, to claim that WP is bound to a "higher standard" where suspects cannot be named, even if they are named in almost every press account of the murder, and every story where Wone is named, they were the ones who invited the victim to their home, were longtime friends and associates and were the first to report the murder to authorities, and maintain their innocence in the face of charges. Please withdraw this nomination.Bachcell (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Good point. Matthew Shepherd and Jesse Dirkhising were neither notable before their respective deaths. Consensus in crime victim article naming does seem to favor naming the victim when the preponderance of media coverage has identified the incident with the victim. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Interesting this case has some aspects of the Jesse Dirkhising case, but has not yet been picked up by conservative activists in that the background of the killers is similarly politically sensitive. When created, this article indicated that it had been deleted before, evidently on similar grounds, and I have seen similar instances such as Rozita Swinton (the person suspected of a fradulent phone call leading to the raid of a Texas ranch) where a person with extensive media coverage is claimed to be not notable, with the effect of suppressing coverage on the basis of harming a living person. Bachcell (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Let's do a thought experiment. Remove everything about the crime from this article. What's left? About a paragraph in the Life section, after removing multiple bits about his death from there, also. In short, he's not notable, and the article is a coatrack to discuss the investigation of the murder and following legal proceedings. From that point, we could write an article about the murder, etc. but there's not much to go with there, either. It's yet another unsolved murder, the only interesting bit is the accusations of evidence tampering. There's also a lot of undue weight given to pointing out the supposed behaviors of the accused (whom I note are not convicted yet, and should have the consideration of BLP as well). As to the comments about famous crimes, I don't see how this compares at all to the televised assault on Rodney King or the brutal and pivotal murder of Matthew Shepherd. There just isn't enough here to satisfy WP:BLP1E for an article on Wone, and I'm dubious about being able to satisfy WP:N for the murder itself. — The Hand That Feeds You: 01:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, do not rename - Enough of this political correct nonsense on Misplaced Pages, to silence the violent crimes of rape and murder, committed by homosexuals against innocent heterosexuals. Enough is enough. Caden S (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Uh, what? Are you really trying to suggest that this is some sort of plot? I never even heard of any of these people before I made this nomination, and how was I in any way supposed to know, from reading this article, that Wone was heterosexual? Way to assume good faith. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep — Subject is clearly notable. If Murder of Robert Eric Wone is the preferred title or not, that is a separate issue to this AfD. But this subject (both the murder and the victim) is demonstrably notable as per the large amount of media coverage and the scholarships, fellowships, and other memorials since named for him. That the subject was not notable before the murder is irrelevant, he is clearly notable now. -kotra (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Addendum: if there are BLP violations in this article, they should certainly be challenged and removed as such. But BLP is only a reason to delete an article if there is nothing worth salvaging after the content that violates BLP is removed. I don't see that being the case in this article. -kotra (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have filed a Wikiquette alert against your mentee, CadenS, due to the above comments and the continual such comments on his Talk page. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep; It is impossible to have a BLP violation with respect to the subject, though it is still necessary to follow NPOV and Verifiability from Reliable sources. The case is notable, and widely reported, so an article is justified. In some such cases we have dealt with the suspects names by finding wording that will not not include the names in the articles, though this does yield some degree of awkwardness. An affidavit from an official source is not necessarily a document of such reliability that it can be used to justify the names. I may be viewing this too rigidly tho, as the WSJ printed the names. Butthere is no possible reason given the WSJ and the ABA articles to not have one in WP. DGG (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I've never claimed that the BLP violation refers to the murder victim, but it most certainly does apply to the people that the article bends over backwards to try to make people believe murdered him. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for now. Supposedly the article is about Robert Wone when actually it's about the criminal charges against the accused. Robert Wone himself may be notable but now his bio is weighted down with all manner of the murder. Are the charges or investigation or lawsuit notable? Has this influenced some major movement besides a quick effort on Misplaced Pages to scarlet letter the gay roommates - seemingly because they are gay. All that is problematic but I think going waaay into innuendo about their involvement is certainly breaching BLP as might be discussing the family's lawsuit. With some perspective, maybe after the investigation and lawsuit(s) are resolved this could be seen for what could be an interesting article but I'm not even sure about what at this point. When we have an article it quickly becomes the top search item on Google - we have to sometimes err conservatively when publishing negative information about living people - what we write here has real world consequences. The tone of this debate also suggests a wp:coatrack in process to suggest that three gay men murdered a strait guy. Misplaced Pages is not the place for this. -- Banjeboi 08:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course you would vote for deletion Benji. You've shown time after time how your biased POV supports your agenda. You were after all successfully topic banned remember? Not to mention you caused serious POV issues, on both the Jesse Dirkhising article as well as on the E.O. Green School shooting page, pushing your biased views. You clearly can't keep your POV in check. You even filed a bogus ANI on me and another editor in an attempt to have me blocked because you didn't like the fact that I exposed you misrepresenting several of the sources used. Caden S (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates