Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Chan

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 see talk page. 山本一郎 (会話)

Andrew Chan

Andrew Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:ONEEVENT applies. Bali Nine covers the event as well as the gang. No member of Bali Nine has a claim to notability, other than event/member of gang. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz Talk 16:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating other members:

Redtigerxyz Talk 16:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep for all - This is one of the most covered and talked about criminals in Australian crime history. They all should have individual articles. They all passes WP:PERP.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERP says "A person who is notable only for ... committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles (in this case Bali Nine) that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person."--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There are hundreds of - if not more - reliable sources at this point. These articles provide some of the best coverage around of a particularly significant and complex case, due to an enormous amount of work; work and coverage that would be lost should they be merged. I think it's a bit of a dick move to nominate nine Good Articles for deletion citing all of one shortcut as justification. Rebecca (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Merging the articles would make Bali Nine (48 kB) an unwieldy size; these articles are a justified WP:SIZESPLIT and have no significant verifiability issues. Dl2000 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all. I do not believe that the size of the main article would be unwieldy if the unique details of each individual were merged. As is, there is a large amount of duplicate information in each of the articles about the individuals. For example, the section entitled "Criticisms of Australian Federal Police tipoff" does not need to be duplicated in every article nor do the quotes in the "Sentencing and appeal" section. These things bloat the articles and give the impression that there is more to say about the individuals than there really is. Location (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Coverage in RS is plentiful, to the extent of establishing individual notability. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. WP:PERP applies and the exclusions listed in it do not. This is a one event and the individual criminals are not notable in themselves. QU TalkQu 20:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. There has been a massive amount of attention given to these people in the press, not just about their crime, but about all the appeals and their life in the Bali prison. They are not "notable only for ... committing a crime or crimes" They clearly meet the notability guidelines. Each article is quite large and quite well written. Is wikipedia improved by deleting them at this time? No. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Dl2000 and Bduke. The deletion or merging of these article would be a negative for the encyclopedia – either the Bali Nine article would become far too bloated or we would lose useful information (as has been noted above, all articles are well sourced and well written [no BLP issues] and they are all either GAs or at GAN). Jenks24 (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I am a significant contirbutor to articles on each of the Bali Nine and on that page itself. I have done a fair amount of ref sourcing and nominated them for GA/GAN. I don't hold a bias and am interested in the outcome, whatever is decided. I started contributing in mid-2011 following the dismissal of Chan's appeal against his sentence. My contributions were based on a number of key issues:
  1. The aritcles as they stand now were not as they stood in mid-June 2011, for example, Rush and Lawrence were full of content, garnered in part through their media exposure and the approach/profile of thier family. This compared with Czugaj and Chen who had only a few lines written about them each.
  2. Chan had much content than Sukumaran. I started to ask myself why.
  3. Some artcles had details of their past criminal backgrounds, others not. I adopted an approach that this was pertinent information, whilst in the public domain and should apply to all, and not just one or two.
  4. There were differences to each case, their motivations for being involved, how they conducted themselves during the arrest and criminal proceedings, and following sentencing. I felt that these nuances would be lost in the main article.
  5. I tried to ensure that the individual articles were written from the persepctive of that individual, and not the collective. This includes the quotes relating to sentencing that are taken from the perspective of the individual being sentenced, or their family.
  6. As to the claim for Wikipedia:ONEEVENT, how do we manage Chan and Lawrence's reported activities in October and December 2004? These activities are only partially covered in the main article becuase they have minimal relevance, but are covered in more detail in the individual artitcles.
  7. A similiar theme is also adopted for the allegedly threatening behaviours of Sukumaran and Chan to some members of the Nine. This is best covered in the individual articles where it is relevant to the individual. Jherschel (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all ONEEVENT explains that if an event is significant enough, the individuals may become significant enough to cover. In this case the event has gone for years, and the individuals and their responses have been covered separately in many RS. The event has impacted Australia's national discussion so much that it clearly meets this threshhold. --99of9 (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:ONEEVENT clearly applies, Bali Nine covers the subject adequately. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all no reason for individual articles when the crime is the notability-giver, per WP:CRIME. Hekerui (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep of all nine due to all (except for Chen) being nominated in good faith to WP:GAN. Keep Chan and Sukumaran in any case, due to their death sentences. No opinion to the other seven on other merits. Sceptre (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does GAN nomination have to do with AFD? AIRcorn (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it was made in good faith, and current GAs tend to be very quickly kept at AfD due to having that quality assessment. If they're then failed, then they should be allowed to be renominated with no prejudice. Sceptre (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It hasn't undergone any quality assessment yet though. Quality and notability are two separate issues in any case. AIRcorn (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point I'm making is that if a good faith quality assessment is merely pending then it should not be nominated for deletion. GA/FA immunity to AfD is an unwritten extension of BEFORE: that, by meeting the criteria, they implicitly pass NOT and N because, obviously, an nn-topic has little chance of meeting source requirements for even GA, and a NOT-topic would be quick-failed in either process. They're clearly not obvious failures, as the articles have been sitting at GAN for three months. Sceptre (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no such procedural keep for articles which are featured articles, let alone those only nominated for good status. Also articles can be assessed as good, even if they are not notable (see WP:WGN#Beyond the scope), although it is harder to meet the other criteria. The fact they have been in the queue for so long probably has as much to do with their questionable notability as anything else. AIRcorn (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sceptre, it's entirely possible that there's another reason they've been sitting there for so long--no one wants to touch them. Ha, I see now that Aircorn basically said that already. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • This rule must be unwritten for a reason: nominate an article at WP:GAN and it will stay out of an AFD discussion for the weeks/months it remains on that page? If anything, clearing up notability should precede a GA nomination, but that's another rule no one wrote down. Hekerui (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree; if they were of questionable notability, they would probably get quick-failed by most GA reviewers. I think the AfD is premature, and that WP:BLP/N should've been used consulted prior to the notification. Sceptre (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They won't get reviewed at GAN until this AfD is closed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, they will likely fail on account of WP:GACR#5 if there is no consensus as to where the information should be, whether or not the articles should be merged or redirected, etc. –MuZemike 02:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by me Keep all opinion. For me it would be absurd to redirect or delete all individual articles. For example Scott Rushs case is totally different from Renae Lawrence for example and they have gone trough different court system proceduals. Which is not totally clear in the main article.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Chan&oldid=1090655794"