Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Carr

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. LFaraone 07:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Carr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete as non-notable under WP:VICTIM; cannot derive notability simply and/or solely by dint of victimhood, without any other reason for purported notability. Quis separabit? 22:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a one-event biography, but Patrick Carr is a plausible search term for the Boston Massacre. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Boston Massacre. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Only merge salient info before redirect based on non-notability. Quis separabit? 20:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you're no longer in favour of deletion? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep -- There are two notable aspects: the admission of deathbed statemetns as evidence (allegedly a legal precedent) and marginal involvement in an important historic event. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - peter Peterkingirons reasoning and the two factual important events.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Things like WP:VICTIM are written for situations such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan C. Clark. He was one of few people involved in a notable historic event, 200 years before the Internet existed — (1) this is definitely the kind of subject that encyclopedias traditionally cover, and (2) the lack of Internet sources is not particularly relevant. Only if we searched something like Early American Imprints without success should we declare that he doesn't have substantial coverage. Nyttend (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don;t think WP:VICTIM applies here--it's more of a limitation on current events, or --along with NOT MEMORIAL--where there are a very large number of victims of a disaster. This is an exceptionally famous historic event, and it's reasonable that the individuals involved are appropriate topics for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to Boston Massacre per WP:BIO1E. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Boston Massacre - while contribution to trial is of note, the individual as a whole does not appear to be so. Now, if there was more referencing, it might be shown that they pass GNG. Actually now I look at business around their testimony, there is nothing given to back up the claim that it is "is one of the earliest recorded uses of the dying declaration exception". GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Carr's dying declaration as relayed in Rex v. Weems et al has been cited by, for example, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts as the most prominent exception to the common law prohibition on hearsay evidence. So Carr is a plausible search term for this important legal concept, and Carr himself clearly passes the GNG, being covered in multiple reliable sources. WP:VICTIM is inapt for a case over two hundred years old. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 21 December 2013 (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.