Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rivera and Walpole

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 delete. Can be recreated at a later time if appropriate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rivera and Walpole

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

See WP:BLP1E. These people have no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where they, rather than the one event they gained notoriety for, are the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. They were accused of committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Dominic·t 07:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To be fair, other than in the news, it has actually been cited in a book -the latter is actually identical to the source in the article and of which the article is a paraphrase. It seems therefore that this is supported by only two but apparently reliable, sources: the newspaper and the book. That said I have no definite stance on the article being kept or deleted. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any notability outside the single murder/trial. Kevin (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G12 - this article appears to be a copyright violation of text at Victims of the State (link [1]). Although it's possible they copied their text from Wikipedia rather than vice versa, the fact they have links to primary sources and we don't suggests that they're the author, not us. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite the copyvio if necessary, as a notable example of wrongful convictions. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd revisit the issue if the text is actually changed but for copyright violation it needs to be delete first, recreate later. Voting keep on the merits and assuming someone else will fix the page results in a copyvio continuing to stand on Wikipedia. I'm not sufficiently convinced of notability to rewrite myself but if you (or someone else) does it feel free to let me know on my talk page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G12 with no objection to creation of a version that's not a copyvio. Ray^Talk 23:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on wrongful convistions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2009 (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.