Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore Shulman

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. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Shulman

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

Textbook example of a BLP that shouldn't be on Wikipedia. This individual made the news, such as he did, for exactly one thing: getting arrested. The arrest was bandied about on several pro-life blogs and personal websites, but the only actual news article I could find discussing it in detail was this from Politics Daily. Literally every other reference I found for him was from pro-life websites, and no source suggests that he was notable prior to his arrest. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS, and this isn't newsworthy to begin with. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His notability seems to be only as a figure of hate. I gather that some people do not like him or his reported views, and he may or not have committed a criminal offence, but I agree with the nominator that this should not be a criterion for inclusion and I do not think that he would have qualified otherwise. AJHingston (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A simple case of GNG. There is only one source, so it fails multiple independent sourcing guidelines. Perhaps the trial and sentencing could bring notability to this case. But it's premature now, given the current sourcing situation. More specifically WP:CRIME applies. And while I clearly accept that the idea of a pro-choice terrorist IS notable in that "the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual", it falls short of the rest of the criteria, where this is NOT something (yet) to be significantly documented in the historical record, nor "historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage". I'll repeat what has been said: Wikipedia is not news.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One reliable source does not notability create. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I dont see any reason to why we shouldnt keep this article for now. Who knows what the charges could be.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one knows - that's the issue. There aren't sufficient sources for the topic, so we shouldn't have an article on it, especially since the subject is a living person.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 22 March 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.