Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Smathers

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. The consensus from the more established editors, which favor retention, outweigh the commentary from the single-purpose accounts. –MuZemike 23:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Smathers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

One time event, WP:BIO1E; Only notable for the one event, does not meet notability requirements, WP:N JsinWP (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion recommended:

One time event, WP:BIO1E Only notable for the one event, does not meet notability requirements, WP:N

7 year old event does not define the subject of the article.

• Comment The subject itself (Jason Smathers) may not be completely defined by the event, but the event itself was certainly very notable and warrants inclusion as an article. See here] for examples of coverage. Perhaps rename the article to AOL email theft Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The event itself doesn't need it's own page, it is already mentioned on the AOL page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JsinWP (talk • contribs) 02:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agreed, one-time event, does not warrant it's own page. RazorsKiss (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)RazorsKiss[reply]

• Comment Agreed, delete page per WP:BIO1E and WP:N policies. ISpurgeon (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As this discussion time concludes, remember the burden to keep the article is high. "in the absence of consensus to retain, Wikipedia may be best served by defaulting to delete the article."^[1] We must follow the Daniel Brandt precedent and delete this page.^[2] JsinWP (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (because other articles link to it for elaboration on the case) or merge and redirect to either 1) America Online#Controversies, 2) Spam (electronic)#United States, or 3) CAN-SPAM Act of 2003#Criminal enforcement. This article already links to the first two, and there are sources stating that this was one of the first cases prosecuted under CAN-SPAM. I'm not sure what has attracted the attention of SPAs, but there are sufficient sources to support that the event is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Location (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the application of WP:BIO1E to people who have received significant coverage in reliable sources for serious criminal acts isn't appropriate. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2010 (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.