Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Woods

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. Cirt (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Per WP:BLP1E. This person is only notable in the context of a single event. Elliskev 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or move. True, this is a BLP1E case, but BLP1E tells us that in these types of situations (where the underlying event is notable, as seems to be the case here based on existing newscoverage[1]), to cover the event, not the person. So the real alternative here is to move the title to something like Murder of Sarah Patterson and revise the article accordingly to include more information about the crime and the victims. If someone is willing to do that, good. If not, I think it is better to keep the present article for now. Nsk92 (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (per Nsk92) explaination. And it isnt actualy only one event it seems, hes case has been nationaly covered because of other subjects surrounding the case. But i say keep the article under its current name until any further information or stands are told. So keep.--Judo112 (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The event itself is clearly notable, and the article should probably be expanded on, even if the name of the article itself is eventually changed (which may be appropriate). Fumoses (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the event is notable, the article should be moved and refactored to focus on the event itself. --Elliskev 15:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I can't decide one way or the other; it might be easier to make a decision if there was more reputable media sources (CNN, newspapers) cited. 23skidoo (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Existing coverage is enough for notability. Given there were more than one victim, the criminal might the best title for the article., but that can be discussed on the talk page. But it does need more sources. DGG (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I've done a bit of cleanup and added a few references from major Texas newspapers to cover any sourcing issues. - Dravecky (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2008 (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.