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 as follows: The nomination calls on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, which further references Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. For the uninitiated, "Biographies of living persons" (BLPs) are something of a fetish item, and merely saying the words invokes the shadow of arbitration.

Given that the article's content (when the material related to the "one event" is removed) consists of "Greaves is a former nurse's aide," the only reasonable outcome to this debate is delete.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Greaves[edit]

Phillip Greaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would think that this fails WP:BLP1E. At most, the article belongs as a standalone article at The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure, but more properly should be at Amazon.com controversies#Pedophile guide. NW (Talk) 22:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All essays. And very generic reply. Still, this is a good article so I vote Keep --Hinata talk 21:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, right - and Barack Obama is a BLP1E because everything notable that he did resulted from a decision to go into politics! I feel that, in general, articles seem more likely to be AfD'd because someone doesn't like what they are about, than for being bad articles. Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of unsourced articles that will never end up here, even unsourced BLPs, but instead this tribunal seems dead-set on removing objects of multiple major widespread news coverage. Wnt (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, I like what you said about Barack Obama. Most people who are famous are famous (or infamous) for just one reason, though fame can be spread out over a period of time. Actors who have acted in one film are notable. One-hit wonders are notable. So why shouldn't an author who has published one book (in this case controversial) not be notable? I can see the BLP1E guideline of not being notable getting applied to a case where a man molests a child, and there is widespread coverage for 1-2 days that afterwards ceases for good. There is even a guideline (WP:ROUTINE) regarding that. But this is anything but routine. This is a person whose controversy has charted new territory. This is someone who has written a book that received a lot of nationwide coverage on two separate occasions when separate events surrounding the book occurred. While there are many articles on people famous for more routine stuff, like simply acting in a film or singing a song, and they are eligible, nothing like this has ever happened before.
I also like what you said about what pages end up here and what pages don't. Come to think of it, Wikipedia has millions of articles now. With just 86,400 seconds in a day, no single person knows or can possibly know what most of them are. Most of them are on obscure topics most people do not know about. They may or may not meet inclusion guidelines. That is a different matter. But the existence of this particular article is known to many more people because Mr. Greaves has been in the national media lately. All it takes for an article to end up here is one person, probably one looking for a witchhunt. In an ironic twist, it is the more popular articles like these that tend to be challenged. Shaliya waya (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that most agree this article's content does belong in Wikipedia somewhere. One of three things has to occur.
  1. The title is kept the same
  2. This article gets renamed
  3. This article's content gets merged somewhere else. Once again, the arrest was not an Amazon controversy.

Shaliya waya (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your point, but it isn't really an argument for retaining this article with the current title since it doesn't go against the basic BLP1E argument raised by the nominator. If anything it's an argument for redirecting Greaves to a re-created article at The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you have a situation in which you have an author and a book, and there can be an article on one but not the other, does it make more sense to have an article on the author with the book title redirecting, or the book with the author's name redirecting? Shaliya waya (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per BLP1E, the answer will usually be the latter, at least in my interpretation. I would argue that the "event" (because we should usually keep articles about the event, not the person, when we are talking about relatively minor events like this) is the publication of the book and all of the ensuing controversy. In a way, at this point, Greaves himself is not really important per say. The book he wrote is what matters, at least for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:31, 3 January 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.
Category