Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Nicholas Candy

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. slakr^\ talk / 12:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Nicholas Candy

Murder of Nicholas Candy (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)

WP:N/CA & WP:BLP1E apply. The murder itself was not so unusual, and the perpetrator (Richard Keech) was unusual in the sense he was a former WWII POW. (The now deleted Keech article was largely a tribute provided by his son.) The unusualness of these figures & events does not make them notable enough for WP inclusion. – S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• delete it This article has no historical value, no relevance to anyone but for five people in the Keech and candy clans. The Keech side wants to put this in the past and move on. The article was originally written by someone on the candy side to harass the keech clan. They forget one member of the keech clan is also a candy, nick's son. He wants it gone too. (Steven Richard Keech (Son of Richard Keech) 17:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC))
• Delete, the notability of the murder is low, and mostly derived from interest in the perpetrator, who has just been found not to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, delete now per consensus to delete also the murder article that has already been established in WP:Articles for deletion/Richard Keech. I can't see any benefit in letting this run another seven days. —Kusma (t·c) 18:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete All murders are tragic, but relatively few are notable in the encyclopedic sense. Although this crime had some unusual aspects, and received routine coverage in local news media, I don't think the depth of coverage justifies an article. It does not seem to be of any historic significance. It seems clear that the article is causing grief to some of the survivors, and that is an additional factor in a decision to delete an article about a crime of doubtful notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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.