Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Glenn Hinson

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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Glenn Hinson

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

Criminal does not seem particularly notable. Echetus Xe 13:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. GNews has dozens of articles. Pburka (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment err? How does this meet WP:Crime exactly? I will quote the the guidelines:

For perpetrators 1.The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. 2.The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. ref- Example: Seung-Hui Cho.

Note: A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. (my emphasis)

Hinson was convicted of rape in 1991, as were no doubt tens of thousands of other rapists, but the only considerable coverage Hinson has received has been for another trial for rape in 2007. He was acquitted and the case was forgotten about. No sustained coverage, not guilty, nothing beyond bog standard reporting of topical news.--Echetus Xe 09:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as run of the mill. Sadly, one out of six women have been raped, and an untold number of men in prison, or by priests, or coaches at Penn State. I don't see how this rapist is notable. Bearian (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please give me guidelines which points towards your personal assumptions?--BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One single conviction for rape doesn't make a person notable.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 05:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by that this artticle should be kept because it does pass WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. The deletion arguments here are weak at best.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, stand by my keep argument. I find news coverage of the subject in every year from 2006-2010, inclusive. Some of the coverage is international. With further work we should be able to find coverage going back to the 1990s. The sustained coverage satisfies WP:GNG. I also note that the nomination is weak at best: "doesn't seem notable" isn't a sound argument. Pburka (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Convicted 20 years ago, more recently charged with with new offnse and acquitted. Attempt at dangerousness committment failed. Oh, and the same judge both times! Nothing here. EEng (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly does not meet the requirements outlined in WP:PERPETRATOR. I notice this guy has now been sentenced to prison again for gun crime, but Wikipedia isn't here to document every criminal's sordid history - there are lots of multiple offenders in jail! Sionk (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no indication that the subject meets WP:CRIME; nothing separates him from the crowd, he simply seems to be a run of the mill criminal. Ducknish (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:CRIME and no other basis for notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Despite no conviction, his situation appears to have sparked legislation in South Carolina to give repeat sex offenders the death penalty [1][2]. Did these bills pass? --Joshuaism (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter what it sparked, unless coverage of the sparkee happens to also contain substantial, reliable, blah blah blah coverage of the subject under discussion here. EEng (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And about 142/275 words (52%) in the Fox News piece and 52/430 words (12%) in the ABC news piece are about Kenneth Hinson. Seems substantial to me, even if the outrage was misguided and he was set up by two skanky teenagers stealing pot out of his drying room. --Joshuaism (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2012 (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.