Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clinton_Lee_Young References

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Clinton Lee Young

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

Non notable and just plain negative BLP. Primary sourcing only, no secondary sources, no significant coverage. Article has an advocacy feel, and just serves as an anchor for the link farm. The thing has been hanging out since 2005 without gaining sourcing. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 05:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete. I wouldn't say negative BLP - he was convicted - if at all the article positively reflects his anti-death penalty advocacy. In my BEFORE - he seems borderline notable (including coverage (TV review) in the Netherlands - [1]). If and when actually executed (which seems possibly soon) - he'll probably have quite a bit more coverage. However the poor article quality, the link farm, and lack of good sourcing - has me leaning to delete. HEY is possibly possible here if there are more sources (I don't have good newspaper archive access - which would be relevant). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep - per writing, per WP:GNG. Sources are third party. BabbaQ ( talk) 11:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Tragic, if he actually was innocent, but unless reliable sources dictate that would have lasting ramifications that tragedy does nothing for notability. I don't know what per writing is supposed to mean (the fact that someone wrote the article?) but, whatever it's intended purpose was, the answer almost certainly would not convince me to switch my !vote. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 05:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong delete Nothing even close to notability, and anything that is not pure news coverage is clearly lacking in reliability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete committing crime, bring convicted, and sentenced to death sans WP:INDEPTH sources ≠ notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Wikipedia is not a police blotter or a collection of true crime stories. Being known for being on death row is the very definition of BLP-1E. Carrite ( talk) 16:52, 7 November 2017 (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.