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. There are many invalid keep arguments. However, there is clearly no consensus to delete, since there are valid arguments on both sides. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

It has been a few months since it happened. But still no indication that it caused any effects on society. There is nothing notable about this individual. --Alchaenist (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--I'm going to stick to my guns from the last AfD: this is a single event which has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Despite claims made in the last AfD about the media being on this story "day after day," well, they weren't then and they aren't now. As the nominator correctly states, this is not something that has impacted society. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. There have been no societal effects, such as moves to decrease the likelihood of those in financial or legal trouble murdering their families. Very tragic for the family and their friends, but there are many familicides and suicides every year, and I do not see anything encyclopedic here. See also the essay Wikipedia:Notability (news) which discusses the different goals of news editors and encyclopedia editors. If the article were to be kept, it should be retitled Parente murder-suicide, since the supposed killer was otherwise not notable. Edison (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. Very substantial coverage. Will certainly be studied and included as one of the incidents related to the financial crisis. This is not some random shooting, but a serious murder-suicide of an entire family related to notable financial fraud issues that are subject to a Federal investigation. Also of psychological noteworthiness [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First see WP:CRYSTAL which rejects your claim that it will be important in the future as a reason to keep the article. Second, are there any murder-suicides which are not "serious?????"Edison (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Did not pass AfD closed less than 2 months ago so no need to start another one so soon. Well-sourced article with many references and substantial news coverage. 68.244.163.208 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - very well covered and sourced. WP:NOTNEWS does not state that a news event cannot ever be notable, particular a very unusual type of event. While it says that routine coverage or events reported in tabloids only are not notable, this is anything but routine. There is also no guideline on Wikipedia that an event has to have daily coverage forever in order to be notable, or to continue to have occasional coverage every so often in order for the notability to remain. Hellno2 (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regardless of the amount of news coverage (the media loves tragedy), this is still a non-notable person who committed a horrific crime. Nothing beyond WP:ONEEVENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to an article about the event, and redirect William Parente to said event article. Symplectic Map (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The coverage appears all to be routine news reporting: there is no evidence of more substantial coverage. Collecting large numbers of links to routine news reporting does not make the coverage anything other that routine news reporting. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems that certain deletionist forces from the previous discussion, such as Drmies, were contacted regarding this discussion, but only one of the many keep voters was notified as best I can tell. I hate to invoke an accusation of canvassing, but were all the previous AfD participants notified or just "some"? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have messaged them in a friendly notice. How is this canvassing? Alchaenist (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you leave friendly notice messages mostly to previous delete votes, I think it's quite clear how that amounts to canvassing. Please notify the rest of the people who participated previously so as not to bias the outcome of this discussion unfairly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the rest of the people who participated previously. This is still unnecessary, because if there wasn't enough input, the administrator would relist the debate to generate a more thorough discussion. Alchaenist (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and do not rename. This ONEEVENT/WP:BLP1E argument cannot be used here because this is about a deceased person. There is not guideline stating deceased people are not notable over one event, just living people. It is normal that we have articles about those notable for a single crime, and they are titled by the name of the criminal; examples 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?). Shaliya waya (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ONEEVENT is not limited to living people. WP:BLP1E is a totally seperate guideline. Call is WP:BIO1E if it makes you feel better. Still doesn't change anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is not a biography, though it purports to be one. This article is about a murder/suicide investigation. I'm sorry to say, IMHO, this sort of event must be classified as routine, for exactly the reason nominator gave: no great resonance in society, despite the (somewhat lurid and yellow) news reports. I'll concede significant news coverage, but we're not here for that. Note to closing admin: Either this page is a bio and must be deleted, or it's an incident and must be renamed. A second "No consensus" outcome doesn't serve the community in this circumstance. BusterD (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm note sure whether the pedia has a policy on this, but I certainly hope we haven't set up a "Wikipedia Fun Time Detective Club" here. I hope we're not here to solve mysteries ourselves. I'm intrigued by a mystery as much as anyone, but IMHO, just like the sources, this page seems to infer the guilt of the subject. Conspiracy issues can also be inferred from both the subject and the sources. IMHO, this seems like a pedia-version of rubber-necking. BusterD (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've written a new section which offers some context. Now the article actually constitutes something approximating biography. I still think it should be deleted, but if it's going to be kept, it should at least resemble a bio page. BusterD (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said a mere two months ago... 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. Why is this being listed again so soon after the previous AfD discussion? Fences&Windows 15:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: It has been about two months. Is there a requirement to how long we need to wait to request for a 2nd nomination? Alchaenist (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia: Notability (criminal acts). This was a nationally reported story. Pink cloudy sky (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given the murders, and the suicide, and the probable motivation fort hem as reported in reliable source's, this isn;'t one event, and I do not see what other title there could be. The obvious titles for this is the name of a person. There are no BLP considerations. Once something has become notable, it remains notable. After a no-concensus close, btw, 2 months seems to me personally a perfectly reasonable time to renominate--I have no objections on that score. DGG (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no requirement of showing any "indication that it caused any effects on society". The actual standard is based on reliable and verifiable sources and the 20 or so sources in this article are more than adequate to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. References show extensive coverage already -- no crystal ball required. At first I was inclined to agree with Symplectic Map's suggestion of renaming, but, on reflection, I think it's inappropriate here. Parente isn't someone who happened to be involved in a newsworthy event, but whose life is otherwise nonnotable; his career was directly related to the event. JamesMLane t c 09:30, 13 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.