Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States death row inmates (2nd nomination)

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States death row inmates

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

The list is completely incorrect, outdated and forgotten looks like. Mlpearc powwow 03:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important information for people with interest in Capital Punishment. Any information can be verified and fixed through looking up individual state death row lists, but this is an appropriate place to put a collected list. If it is outdated, update it. If it is incorrect, correct it. Neither are deletion criteria. Eauhomme (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is certainly a legitimate encyclopedic topic in my opinion. Rather than nominating something notable for deletion because it has shortcomings, why not instead channel that energy toward improving the list, as so wisely recommended at WP:BEFORE? Cullen328 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Irresponsible AfD, fails to cite any real deletion criteria. The article need references, the topic is notable and encyclopedic. References can be easily found. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hasn't been updated recently isn't a reason for deletion: it's a reason to update the article. A list of US death row inmates is in itself notable, as reliable third parties have written books, dissertations, etc. on the demographics of death row inmates based specifically on lists like these. --NellieBly (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A cleary notable topic with clear inclusion criteria for a list. If it is "outdated" as the nom states, then maybe they'd like to fix it. Lugnuts (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all arguements above.--Dmol (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is raw data, however important it is, not an encyclopedia article. (Yes, I know there are other lists here.) Borock (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I admit it needs work but I think we need to keep it. --Kumioko (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated on the talk page, there are over 3100 inmates in the Unite States on death row. A list of that size is impossible to complete, source, and maintain. While committing a capital crime and being sentenced to death seems to me to be notable, it falls under WP:NOTNEWS. We need to consider the enduring notability of these people, which for an overwhelming majority there is none. I would support a list that reads something like "Notable convicted criminals currently awaiting execution" or something along those lines. Beach drifter (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful list.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category would make more sense. Not every person on death row in the US has notability to satisfy WP:BIO. A complete listing of this sort is probably not published or maintained by any reliable secondary source; it is just a hodgepodge of information likely to become stale, since it is from primary sources. It is full of WP:BLP violations at present, in which numerous living persons are said to be convicted murderers, without any reference at all to verify the fact. In a list of thousands of such names, many high school students will add their Principal or math teacher's name with lurid crimes claimed. Even for actual killers, Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous information, and not a directory. If persons now on death row in the US are notable enough for a list, then so is everyone ever executed in any country, since notability is not temporary, and since they would at one time have been on some "death row." The silliness of such a list shows what is wrong with this one. Edison (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you are saying "delete this article because it may be vandalized." If that were a valid reason for deleting articles, we'd sure have a lot of articles deleted. Even those with regular vandalism are not deleted. This article, on the other hand, has little if any history of being vandalized. Hellno2 (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is an appropriate sub-article of Capital punishment in the United States. BLP demands can be met easily by removing any entry without an independent reliable source and, when a person is removed from Death Row by whatever method, their entry can be removed. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started trying to clean the article of BLP violations in the form of names with no references. It is a nightmare of BLP violations. Many names were unsourced, so I removed them. The ones for Connecticut are at least linked to an article specific to Connecticut, but present ref 19 in the Connecticut article is an AOL story which is a deadlink, and it is the only source for most of the names. To make it worse, and really demonstrate why this article should be deleted, one of the names in the present article is different from the name in the Connecticut list. The Connecticut list seems to be right in listing Eduardo Santiago jr, but the remaining ref, a news article just says the jury recommended the death penalty, not that it was imposed. Then this article has a completely different name for the same murder, which name is not mentioned in the news article. If it this messed up with these few names, it will be a complete and gross BLP vio when another 3000 names are added. Do not expect someone else to spend hundreds of hours a year trying to update it as people get new trials or pardons. When a name is linked to a news story, it is very likely to go dead during the 15 years or more the person remains on death row. I do not feel that I am required to search for sources before removing an unreferenced name; WP:BLP does not require that, and it would be a huge task. I will list these two articles (national and Connecticut) at the BLP noticeboard so more editors can work on correcting the BLP violations. Edison (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, many people on this list have Wikipedia articles already, and per WP:LIST guidelines, there can be lists of people in a category with good reason. Death row is a good reason, especially since that is what these people are notable for. Many DR inmates currently do not have articles. But most capital cases are notable, given the amount of coverage that takes place over the course of several years. Even if there is no article bearing the title of the DR inmate himself, there could potentially be an article on the crime, and a redirect of the inmate's name to that article. That would lead to a possible blue link of the inmate's name. If there is a particular state with a huge number of DR inmates (such as California or Texas), there could be a separate page for that state, with a {{main}} tag directing readers there. Writing about a person being on DR is not a BLP violation because generally, the fact one is on DR is known to the public via reliable sources. Hellno2 (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is indeed a gross violation to say that some named person is on death row for murder without a reliable source to verify the fact. One of the names for Connecticut was and still is incorrect. He is not on death row. It is not a "fact" when it is fictitious, libellous and vandalism, as at least one of the present entries apparently is even as I write. That is the flaw in having such an article as this. It is so easy for you to !vote "Keep" without taking any time at all to remove bogus entries from the list or to reference correct entries. I will now go and remove an incorrect name from the list. I will not always be watching the list to remove other incorrect listings. Edison (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From all the comments you have made, your main point seems to be "delete because this page can have BLP violations." But we do not go around deleting articles because of what can go wrong with them. So, one or more people were erroneously listed here (in good faith), and then removed, and the problem was solved. If we were to have a policy that pages susceptible to erroneous BLP violations could not be included, then we might as well delete many, possibly all biographies or articles including information on people, because it is so easy to mistakenly put someone's name down for something inaccurate. The nature of journalism is such that errors do get made sometimes. The same happens in encyclopedia. Do you throw the baby out with the bathwater?

At the time I posted there was a fictitious name on the Connecticut list. I did not claim that a fake name MIGHT BE added to the list, I complained because a fake name ACTUALLY WAS ON THE LIST!!!! And no one had cared to take the time to maintain the list free of vandalism/fake names. But various editors here LOVE the list and want names, however fake, posted on it, in gross violation of the policy WP:BLP. This saddens and disgusts me. The closing admin should delete this article because it has a demonstrated history of violating WP:BLP, and because there is no likelihood that anyone will monitor it to remove such violations,given the articles sad present state and history. Edison (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- And This shows why that 'fake' name was on that list. It wasn't vandalism, it was a lack of an update of that one entry since June 4, 2010. Not ideal, no. How long does the entry stay in a print encyclopedia? How long will his conviction stay on the rest of the internet? We're better than either. And not exonerated, ordered given a new trial, which could have been in the edit summary of its removal. Dru of Id (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of crying out about these problems, why doesn't everyone here concentrate on finding all the names of all the DR inmates in their home state, along with sources for each one? Virtually all capital cases do receive some coverage, so all listings should be verifiable. The most up-to-date listings could most likely be found on some public database online, and a Google News search could probably find news articles on the case. Hellno2 (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable topic. Inclusion standards are concrete, list is not infinite, list has functionality as a navigational tool. Carrite (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Extremely poor list in terms of completeness and sourcing. Needs work. Carrite (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. My guess is that reliable sources for this list will be relatively easy to find. It took me about a second to find an official list for Connecticut. GabrielF (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sloppy or inferential referencing seems contrary to WP:BLP. The Idaho names are still only referenced in many cases to a state database which says they were convicted for first degree murder. That does not automatically equal a death sentence. Absent a current reference saying they are under a death sentence, shouldn't the Idaho names be removed? If such a ref is "easy to find" then please find it, or I will remove the Idaho names lacking the necessary refs. Lots of editors "like" this list, few seem to have time or inclination to do the necessary maintenance, leaving BLP violations. Edison (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The official IDOC death row list was the first reference for the state entry, but for clarity is now cited at each entry, which would have been done sooner with a response at your talk or a comment at mine. Dru of Id (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PLEASE ACTUALLY READ THE REFERENCE! Nowhere does the Idaho state site say that each currently is under a death sentence, or was ever given a death sentence, which would be required to support their membership on this list. Maybe they were and are, but encyclopedias are not based on supposition. I was once on a jury which found a man guilty of first degree murder, and eligible for the death sentence, but the judge did not choose to impose a death sentence. Edison (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the reference? Sure. The title is 'Death Row', the url is 'death_row', from the official state agency that manages the state death row. (First part) Current count: 16 (15 men, one woman) Sixteen offenders are under the sentence of death in Idaho – 15 men and one woman. The men are incarcerated at Idaho Maximum Security Institution south of Boise. The woman, Robin Row, is incarcerated at Pocatello Women’s Correctional Center in Pocatello. (Second part) (For more information, click on a name below.) Odd that the woman named is one of the links, and that there are 15 men...Which part is not in the reference? Dru of Id (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the reference that says the persons in Idaho are each on death row. It was not there by each name 20 hours or so earlier when I complained of a lack of reference saying each was on death row. Edison (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er...Yes, it was. I added it, commented here, and then you commented further. Dru of Id (talk) 20:36, 2 May 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.