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 keep. (X! · talk)  · @279  ·  05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Markoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I was reading an article on a different murderer which was nominated for deletion. The arguments are varied but they all really point to deletion of this article. WP:N/CA was cited in another article. It really applies here. N/CA says "They are notable for something beyond the crime itself" NO, FAILS.. N/CA says "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." NO, MISERABLY FAILS. N/CA says "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" NO, FAILS, robbery and murder is very common.

BLP1E was cited in another article. Philip is a one event person.

Another reason cited in another article was that this article is just about the murder and should either be deleted or merged into the murder of miss --- article.

For some reason, this article violates every known reason for an article. The only reason that could be used is that a lot of news mentioned it after the murder, but that would maybe support the murder article, but not the accused murderer article. Also some people may hate Jews or future doctors or hate Northeners or hate white people or hate possible Republican nuts who attend Karl Rove speechs, and want an article to show how bad White Northerner Jewish Doctor possible Republicans are but this is not a reason for having an article. For this reason, anyone who writes about racial articles (pro white or pro nazi), North/South/Confederacy articles (pro southern), Israeli/Gaza articles (anti Israeli), pro holistic or chiropractor articles or negative articles about Republican or positive Democratic articles should not vote because of conflict of interest. Amthernandez (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Murder of Julissa Brisman, the only reason he is notable. Jpatokal (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was brought here by a rather strange message on my talk page, which looks a bit like subtle canvassing, so I hope Amthernandez has warned the people who voted in the earlier deletion debate, the person who created the page and those who edited the page a few times as well. I have my own idea about whether this article is necessary on Wikipedia just like that, but in view of the message on my talk page and Amthernandez' handling of the Deletion Debate on Maria Belen Chapur I think I am going to swallow his WP:BEANS and say that I cannot vote - as a registered participant at the anti-birfer blog Politijab (North hate white people, Gaza, Democratic - take your pick)--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is charged with more than one crime, as is documented in the articleand has had substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. WP:BLP1E does not apply. Edison (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If you read WP:BLP1E it also provides for people who recieve massive attention for a single event which is the case with Philip Markoff who recieved a large amount of lasting national attention and some international attention. It is also important to consider the crime as a whole and not just boil it down to simple robbery and murder. The crimes Markoff commited were unual and represent a new type of crime in the modern age of the internet. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the discussion of political bias in the last part of the nom but it is imporant to assume WP:GOODFAITH on the part of editors. Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep While ONEEVENT is a good point, I think this guy's actions were covered thoroughly by the national media and I think that he has long term notability Corpx (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Is this a joke? BLP1E allows if massive attention for a single event. But this article is not about a single event, but a string of events. And I'm having a hard time deciphering what the nominator is even talking about but it sounds like someone is trying to use this AFD to make a WP:POINT about some unrelated issue. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Clearly a straight delete is not the right way to go with this article. At the last afd I gave the opinion that the name should reflect the events and not the name of the perp. However I think that ship may have sailed.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator accuses all editors who want to keep this article of being prejudiced and tries to impose swingeing COI rules on this discussion. I would argue that this nomination totally fails to assume good faith in other editors and is thus invalid. Additionally, the circumstances of this case are certainly unusual, and Markoff meets the WP:GNG. Fences&Windows 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, this is a nomination that appears to be a reaction to the deletion of Clara Harris (criminal), which the nominator started:[1]. Fences&Windows 20:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge This is an example of the debate of what we want Wikipedia to be. If it is to be a respected encyclopedia, then this article should be deleted because it's just tabloid journalism. If Wikipedia wants to be the hip depository of the latest internet gossip, then the article should be a keep.

If one wants to follow the rules, the merging the article to the Murder of Jessica Brisman is the right thing to do. Markoff is not an accused serial murderer. He's probably just a robber with gambling debts that killed someone by accident. Some of the cited rules like BLP1E and NCA support not having a separate article.

If we look into the future and see how notable this person is in 2019, we will find that he's no more notable than the murderers of 1999. One murderer, convicted in 1999, is Tim Masters but you'll see that his article is a redirect to the murder article. Other much talked about murders of 1999 are little known now, as will probably be the case in 2019 for Markoff.

The most popular thing to do would be to keep but a logical thing to do would be to merge the article with the Murder of Brisman article and see in a few years time if Markoff is on the same level as criminals like John Hickley, Jr. User F203 (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it's just notable enough to be included. It's not a badly-written article, and has some decient referencing (I think). I think a merge would be possible, but rather awkward as the article is quite long as it is now (or so I remember). He did receive massive attention nationally, and I remember some international stuff. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 21:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Internet homicide and Murder of Julissa Brisman. I really do doubt whether this bloke will have lasting notability, and the attention afforded to him by the blood-thirsty media outlets was as a result of a fairly standard crime of murder. The media hysteria due to the Craigslist post qualifies him for a mention somewhere, but given the acronyms WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP, merging seems like the sensible solution. I would also like to point out that just because you saw him on the news when it happens does note make the AfD about him a 'joke'. Also, charged with more than one crime doesn't make him exempt from WP:BLP1E. The policy covers people who are only notable for one event, and his standard robbery charges are not anything that would've resulted in a Wikipedia page. He got attention for the murder, his article was written due to the attention of the murder, not the binding and robbery of the robbery of an escort. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect per Backslash Forwardslash. WP:BLP1E. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2009 (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.