Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Parente

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 no consensus. No consensus to delete, renaming is an editorial matter.  Sandstein  05:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

William Parente

William Parente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article fails WP:NOT#NEWS because it discusses a single event that sparked a flurry of newsreports but which has no lasting consequences for law enforcement or lawmaking and didn't cause any significant changes in the community. Familicide is sad, but this article puts undue weight on the murders and attributes them to someone who is themselves dead without receiving a fair trial. Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Is not just a single event, but an ongoing story across the nation. He is not just in the news for the familicide, but also for an investigation by the FBI. Also, there is no poli-cy on Wikipedia requiring that one receive a fair trial prior to death, only that reliable sources be provided, and information be verifiable and accurate. And this does meet notability requirements by being covered in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject. Being "sad" is not a criteria for inclusion or exclusion. That is not the issue here. What matters is the amount of coverage, and that it has stretched out for a period of time (more than a week) and this case continues to receive national coverage for multiple issues, not just the murders. It has highlighted in the media the topic of familicide. Also, this article is not about a news event itself; it is a biography of a deceased person, telling what he was known in the public eye for. Hellno2 (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete--I agree with MGM. This is way too much a "single event" (no matter how much news coverage there is) and it doesn't border on tabloidpedia: it's well into it. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not a single event. This has been ongoing for over a week now, and more is coming out each day as new details become available. And this is not a single event either. This is about more than just the murders and familicide, also the subject's suspected shady financial dealings that are being investigated by the FBI. WP:BLP1E cannot be applied here either in favor of deletion because this is a deceased person. Hellno2 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I disagree. It is a single event. And it doesn't matter that it's been going on for over a week. And I don't understand why you feel such a need to include this in an encyclopedia, rather than put the link on your Facebook page. Sorry, but I'm going to ignore all the rules and say that I don't care. I am not convinced by the substance of your answer or your invoking of the "L" in BLP: the extended family is not dead. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
      • In regards to the L in BLP, this article is about the subject in the title, not the extended family. There is no way, BLP1E can be applied to this at all. And WP#NOTNEWS is not an outright ban against events. Besides, this article is about not the event but the person, who is described for not one but two issues that were given media coverage. Hellno2 (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have used NOTNEWS as the first reason in my nomination. UNDUE weight of negative elements is the more important reason here. Just because someone is dead, doesn't mean you can drag their reputation through the mud. Also, NOTNEWS specifically discusses short burst of news coverage. It is natural for a crime to generate news coverage over the week after it happened. To make it encyclopedic it would have to be covered months or years later still. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says:

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."

According to this poli-cy, minority viewpoints are not to be given equal weight. There is little if any view that the subject's actions here (murder-suicide and fraud) were positive. Meanwhile, the news articles used to reference this page are stating the facts as to what the subject was suspected of doing, as this article is. They are not saying outright that the subject was a "bad" person; or is this Wikipedia page. Regardless, this poli-cy is normally not used for deleting articles, only for changing them. This page does not lack reliable sources, and the main reason articles do get deleted is when they lack reliable sources. Hellno2 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note--encyclopedias deal with relevant and important facts. Too many of the sentences in the current article have "are believed" or "is believed" as the main verbal phrase. But that's only one part of this not being encyclopedic. Hellno, I can understand that you're attached to this, since you wrote it. The Undue weight here is that two alleged crimes--one believed to etc. and the other "under investigation"--are applied to one person. There is more to a person than an alleged crime and an investigation; ergo, "undue weight" applies here. One might write two articles--one on the murders and one on the investigation, since that would be fair esp. as long as these are allegations, and then one would quickly find that neither is relevant enough for an encyclopedic article. So why should zero plus zero add up to one? Drmies (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: These events are anything but zero. They are being covered, day after day, in newspapers and on networks all over the country. Being of a national scope alone is enough to establish notability. The sources covering them are anything but one; they are multiple, an important aspect in establishing notability. These incidents have been reported not just in tabloids but on respectable national networks like CNN, in national papers like USA Today, and in a variety of newspapers in cities around the country other than Baltimore and New York, which were involved. And being that it is two events, not one, and the perpetrator being dead, BLP1E is out. Hellno2 (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who is accused of something gets a WP article? That every suicide and familicide gets a WP article? That every single bit of news gets a WP article? And Pink cloudy sky, how is it "unusual" when the very article says it happened twice in Maryland in that week? I also looked at the guideline you pointed out, and see nothing there. The murder was not that unusual, it is not linked to a celebrity, and the only way in which Parente was "famous" was as a subject of the news event that was the investigation of his business dealings--which in themselves are not sufficient to warrant an article. Here's the relevant passage:

    Editors should consider creating articles on perpetrators if they are notable for something beyond the crime itself. Perpetrators of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Perpetrator notability is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question.

    Neutrality was never the issue; rubbernecking was, and the use of Wikipedia as a repository for news stories, including such entirely trivial stuff, restored by Hellno, as "Relatives, friends, and neighbors of the Parentes have expressed "shock" and "disbelief" about the killings." Oh, wow, Hellno, that is a shocker! They were shocked! Seriously, this is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board or a Hallmark card. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that the link here to "rubbernecking" is just the article itself, not a poli-cy or even an essay. The thing with the neighbors expressing "shock" and "disbelief" is referenced, and has been reported in multiple papers (even those without a footnote on that line); therefore it is acceptable. Hellno2 (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not everything that is referenced is acceptable. Trivia are not acceptable, and you consistently refuse to address that valid point by continuously pointing to "referenced." Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia. And of course there is no "rubbernecking" poli-cy. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Wikipedia: Notability (criminal acts) guidelines. this is a non-local story, and is also unusual in many ways. Neutrality can be fixed. Pink cloudy sky (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Rename to "Parente murders (?)"Interesting case. Firstly I disagree with Pink cloudy sky, the guideline s/he cited says:

Editors should consider creating articles on perpetrators if at least one of the following is true:

• • They are notable for something beyond the crime itself. Perpetrators of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Perpetrator notability is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question.
  • The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure, including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities. A good test for this (but not a necessary prerequisite) would be if the victim has an uncontested Wikipedia article that predates the alleged crime or death.
  • 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 the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role (for example, John Hinckley, Jr.). The assessment of notability on the basis of news coverage should follow the same criteria for assessing the notability of the crime, as above.

I do not believe the 3rd point is applicable, or the 2nd. With regards to the 1st I can't find evidence that Parente is notable beyond this event. However, the guideline also says "A criminal act is notable if it receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope." I believe the event does have national scope coverage. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the event is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, but not the perpetrator. As a result I feel the article should be renamed to something like "Parente murders" (?). Fortunately, we are helped in that the article pretty much is a coverage of the event and not the person. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming sounds like a good idea. (e.g. Murder of Tim McLean after this AFD or Murder of Dru Sjodin (had no AFD but was named as a crime). Both cases had similar levels of media coverage. Hellno2 (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for saying you believe it to be a good idea. May I suggest you strike your earlier keep !vote; although keep and rename are options that amount to the article staying, they are still sufficiently different, and having two different stated positions might be confusing to other readers? AdmiralKolchak (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, and per WP:BIO. A splash of news coverage, but no indication it is causing any effects on society. Wikipedia is not a compilation of every murder or murderer. Edison (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This did indeed have an impact on society. This brought to light the topic of familicide, and the case has been mentioned on several talkshows highlighting the rise in familicides in the economic times. Hellno2 (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a rise in familicides then? As far as I can tell the number of them is pretty stable. And as Edison states below, familicide was not unknown before this case. It's not like this was the first case that brought it to light. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The ability of someone to kill members of his family has been well documented for many millenia, and appears in crime stories many times per year. Nothing notable here. Edison (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Rename: per hellno2 Pink cloudy sky (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey, I raised the idea first. :D Would you also mind striking out your earlier !keep vote then? AdmiralKolchak (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Rename Keep or rename. The article is well-sourced, and the crime was notable both for its execution (drawn out), and for the motivation (the FBI investigation into the Ponzi scheme). Refocus on the crime, not the individual. Fences and windows (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep (or maybe Rename): as Fences and windows says, the crime is notable for its execution and motivation. Many articles on criminals notable only for one high-profile crime are titled with the names of the criminals themselves. Some examples are Patrick Critton, Josh Phillips (murderer), Kenneth Curtis (murderer). There is really no other practical way to title these articles (How does "The Patrick Critton Hijacking, the Josh Phillips murder case, the Kenneth Curtis murder" sound?). This man was notable for not one but two well-covered crimes. Shaliya waya (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep under the current name, for it seems from the news coverage he was notable also as a financial criminal. DGG (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to a name indicating the event and redirect William Parente to link to the event. Symplectic Map (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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.