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. Sr 13 03:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choctaw Three[edit]

WP:BLP reasons. Although this case did make the news, it was not the subject of continued media interest. In fact, it was apparently just a brief curiosity in the news. -N 00:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose it may have been a notable event, but it just barely made news, and a tie goes to the BLP deletion policy. Shalom ^Hello 01:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being unusual is not the same as being notable, and that includes crimes. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Danras seems to be the lead editor for the article, perhaps someone should ask them for comment. Guroadrunner 09:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is substantially the same as when I originally wrote it. I already have the article’s contents posted on a different web site along nearly a thousand other wrongful conviction cases. I would rather Wikipedia not compete with it. I have not had problems with this article, but in general the Wikipedia articles I wrote require far more time responding to minor or pointless criticism than writing an article requires. I suppose Wikipedia is a better forum for chat than articles, and that articles just provide some content about which one can chat.

The Choctaw Three is not the most interesting case, but it is the only one in which people were convicted for murdering a non-existent person. There are only about 5000 U.S. murders a year including many that are unsolved or little reported on. Since Wikipedia has 1.8 million articles and growing, I would think every reported murder case would be notable. However, some feel that only the dozen or so that make national news are notable. --Danras 12:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia ≠ United States, and newsworthy ≠ notable. I don't necessarily see a problem with an article on a well-known crime per se, although often such articles are created whilst the newsprint is still wet. However, these articles are always subject to being revisited at a later date... and per WP:NOTE#Notability is not temporary, if the crime is no longer considered notable, the article should go. EyeSerene^TALK 09:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to me to fail WP:NOT#INFO as the people involved/the events have no long-term historical notability. --Malcolmxl5 14:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - notability is not a short-term thing. EyeSerene^TALK 18:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is currently not WP:BLP compliant, due to inadequate sourcing. If the claims are true, then a BLP compliant article could be written using solid sourcing - but it wouldn't have to mention the names of the convicted individuals. Once that is written, we can consider notability - solid sourcing is likely to be better evidence on notability than the current article demonstrates. The sole link is clearly to an advocacy organization, and one source doesn't uphold notability. GRBerry 21:08, 18 July 2007 (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.