Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markeith Loyd

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Markeith Loyd

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The article does not establish any notability outside of the first degree murder. Coverage of the murder seems largely local (Orlando). Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has received national and international coverage. [1][2][3][4][5] TheBD2000 (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TheBD2000's providing of sources. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:PERP, Wikipedia does not keep articles about alleged criminals whose guilt has not yet been proven in a court of law — the appropriate time for a Wikipedia article about an alleged criminal is when they've been found guilty of the crime, not as soon as they've merely been charged. A Wikipedia article about an alleged criminal can actually become the cause of a mistrial if we don't treat it with a level of WP:BLP hypervigilance greater than we can ever actually guarantee — and if he's found not guilty in the end, then what? And a modest amount of "in the moment" media coverage, not particularly exceptional as media coverage of murder goes, does not add up to a valid argument that the existence of media coverage (which never fails to exist for any murder, ever) somehow overrules PERP: there are numerous situations where the BLP imperatives collide with "notable because WP:GNG", and BLP takes precedence over GNG when that happens — and alleged but not convicted criminals are one of those situations. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:BLPCRIME, a crime biography should not stand until a conviction is secured. Loyd may not be notable, but the court case is generating significant controversy. The event may get ongoing attention, but an article about Loyd is premature at best. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Murder of Sade Dixon and Debra Clayton, omitting name of suspect. Case is gaining significant media attention. gNews search here: [6] Article can continue to grow as the case moves toward trial. We can always revisit notability in a couple of years, but as per WP:PRESERVE it is best to let a developing story develop. Is there, perhaps, a template advising editors to keep name of suspect out of the article, until convicted?.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bearcat. Until this guy gets convicted, this is a huge BLP liability. Nothing stops us from making a new article at a later time if there is lasting coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as TOOSOON -- there doesn't seem to be substantial coverage yet. But the rule is a little different and morenuanced that what was said above "Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." (from WP:N(people). It isn't prohibited, just that it requires caution, and we have had 100s of such articles, though we usually title them ":Murder of X..." t

yo avoid giving the person arrested undue prominence DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 24 April 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.