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. Agree with MelanieN's assertion that CRIME is and should be a high standard. This discussion, however, shows that this standard has been met. J04n(talk page) 01:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Allen Chapman (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)

I am pretty sure this doesn't pass WP:CRIME, and being the "last person executed by the State of Kentucky" isn't a point of notability. Sourced or not, it makes a lot of claims about people who may still be living. If anything, it would be in an article about the crime itself, but I don't see the crime as so extraordinary that it warrants its own article either. Dennis 19:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is notable. I do not see where Dennis requested this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_in_Kentucky to be. He hasn't, and standards should be consistent across the board. Wikipedia upheld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_in_Kentucky as passing, and therefore, this page should be upheld by the same notability standards. Why has Dennis has not requested the other page to be deleted? He needs to request it to be deleted, if he has consistent standards, or give an explanation how one passes and the other doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahrosemc (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that isn't the case. Please see WP:WAX. The fact that one article needs deleting doesn't justify keeping another. And in this case, having him on a list of people who were executed isn't the same thing as having a full blown article on him with details that include living people. Read WP:CRIME for an idea. Dennis 19:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there is no consistency with you. Within minutes, Dennis pushed for two of my recently published pages to be deleted, and there just wasn't enough time to have read both of them, in the time he took to request it's deletion. On the other page, Dennis suggested that one of my citations wasn't in the book, when it was there, I had to republish it again, so he could see it clearer, so this guy is just throwing out any ole random accusation, hoping something will stick. The dialogue on the talk page shouldn't be longer than the main article. We would have served all of our time had we gathered together, and said, what shall we do? Instead, I'm defending that a person who savagely murdered, showing the brutality of everyday man, who also was put to death by the government, which isn't acceptable in some civilized parts of the world, is notable. Both elements are notable, and even moreso together. Of course it's notable. That's why wikipedia has already noted it in other pages. Human life is also precious, and that's notable too, though I believe policy disagrees with me on that point. But all other points, I'm on point with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahrosemc (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%22Murder_of%22_articles#Capital_cases Capital cases "In the United States, most modern capital murder cases (those resulting in a death sentence) are notable. The process of appeals following a crime is lengthy, and the American mass media covers these cases so much over a long period of time, that notability guidelines are likely to be met. Still, articles should be titled "murder of [victim]" as long as the involvement is a one-event perpetrator and a one-event victim." Sarahrosemc (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(criminal_acts) Executed Criminals in the United States. "I have forwarded the position since 2005 when originally challenged on Dobie Gillis Williams that everyone executed individual in the United States since reinstatement is noteworthy for inclusion in WP. It is only 2.5% of convicted murderers that are sentenced to death and only a fraction of those sentenced to death actually get executed. Every executed convict since Furman has received significant coverage in the news media. This includes the crime, the trial, and ultimately the execution. There are also usually numerous articles that over the span of years as the the convict's appeal and pardon applications are exhausted. These cases also have numerous independent reliable sources of information for a WP article due to the intense media coverage and also from the large of amount of public domain information contained in the opinion of the appellate courts. As I recently said in the current AfD ""Ordinary" murderers are not executed. It is only the extraordinary ones that are executed." This appears to the appropiate page to attempt to form a consensus on this issue. Reading WP:N/CA does not provide any guidance on post-reinstatement executed murderers in the United States. To be clear, there has been a total of 1,173 executions since 1976." Sarahrosemc (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You would do better if you spoke less about your opinion of me and my actions, and about other articles, and focused on this article and the exact criteria on notability it meets. It doesn't matter if there have been 1 billion executions, the article is about one person, not executions in general. Dennis 2¢ 02:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to cover WP:GNG. That there are plenty of executions in the uS are no argument for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:CRIME, being covered in detail in works such as this Andrew (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have a high standard of inclusion at WP:CRIME and this perpetrator doesn't reach it, nor does the crime he was convicted of. There was some local coverage of the trial, crime, and execution, and even a little national coverage from USA Today. But truly notable criminals get TV shows about them, or books written about them (actual books, not four pages in a book about lots of criminals), or saturation national coverage at some points in their arrest and trial. That was not the case with this guy. In any case, if the article is kept, it needs to be trimmed by at least 50%. All that minute-by-minute detail about his execution: delete. All those one-sentence-paragraphs detailing every step of the appears process: trim drastically. And for heaven's sake, include the reason for the one thing you are claiming he was notable for: WHY was he the last person executed in Kentucky? --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gallatin County is a small town rural community, so no doubt, a heinous event such as this, is a town that's still reeling from it's effects. To claim that this is absolutely not notable is ridiculous. It passes all necessary guidelines for Wikipedia's standards. High standards is fine, but impossible standards is not. And if the government executed 1 Billion executions, that would also be notable. Seriously? The government murdering over 1 Billion executions isn't notable to Mr. 2 Cents? Please. Come off it. 2 Cents also needs to take his own advice. Stick to the arguments. Also, consistency means something. That's why Wikipedia has standards. For consistency's sake.

About the living, I have nothing by endless sympathy for them. And I'm glad there were some survivors, because had their not been, then Marco may have gotten away with his crimes. Another great thing about the truth, is that through all of the ugliness, there are moments of bravery, that one can never forget. When 7 year old Chelbi was attacking 30 year old Marco, that's bravery unheard of, from a child. So we shouldn't delete her from history, just because we do not like Marco. While I understand that Wikipedia's standards would never allow for a Chelbi Sharon page to be put up, this is one way for her life to keep on surviving, and to have meaning. And for the surviving, to go through such horrible brutality, and to still survive... amazing. To rip the wire off your hands, and to crawl to the neighbor's house, that's amazing. It's shows a great will to live, and to fight back.

A huge part of this case was that since Marco Chapman willingly was put to death, the motive for the crime was never said, which remains a mystery for today. So to ask further questions about this man and the crime, and execution, is to verify that this article is notable, and should still be available for everybody.

Wikipedia has already approved a list of those executed in Kentucky, so therefore, this debate has already been decided in the past. Of those 3 names listed, only Edward Harper Lee doesn't have their own Wikipedia page. Harold McQueen does, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_McQueen,_Jr. His claim to Wikipedia fame was approved because he was “the first criminal executed by the State of Kentucky after the reinstatement of capital punishment in the United States in 1976.” This event happened in 1997, and it only has 2 references. But that was enough.

Plus Wikipedia has a page dedicated to those who merely on death row in the USA. What's notable about that? They haven't even been murdered yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_death_row_inmates

Compare Harold McQueen to Marco Chapman, and while the murder, and the execution, are clearly notable to the layperson, it's even more notable because it was the last execution that the Commonwealth of Kentucky has approved. The very last one. Why did he get executed? Read the article.

In the introduction to what is notable and what is not, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) it says merely that “the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. So while there's numerous sources from all across America about Marco, including at least one book I found, on the first page of a google search, just because Marco is popular, that doesn't mean he's notable. So there's 2 major standards for Wikipedia notability. The first one, is that Marco Chapman needs to be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", which is a criteria he easily passes.

The second major standard for Wikipedia notability, whereas biographies are concerned, is listed at WP: BASIC, which says that the person “received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”, which is also true. Harold McQueen, a person who was not the last person executed in Kentucky, only needed 2 sources to pass this criteria. I have 18 sources already listed. There's a Fox News article and a USA Today article in the batch, as well as a book, and many local sources. I even included some court documents, since all executions are guaranteed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Kentucky. That's national coverage, plus a mention in a book, while not detailed, does offer interesting analysis, and it's the only source that provides some type of explanation for doing what he did. While I believe Linda Tally Smith's assessment in that he was seeking revenge, plus there was crack involved, one can never truly know, especially since Marco was never put on the stand in order to say why he did the things he did. In fact, Marco agreed with what the survivors wanted, and he seemed resigned to his punishment, because he knew he did something very wrong to somebody he loved. The lack of motive leaves lingering questions, whereas a jury trial may have solved this mystery. Whatever Marco's motive was, he took them to the grave.

This article also passes WP:GNG, which says “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” Then it goes on to define those terms, and ends with “If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.” If those who oppose the world knowing about this information would state whether they see a different article out of this, that would be helpful to their Wikipedia colleagues. But the original point is still valid. This man has received plenty of coverage to warrant a Wikipedia page. All of the sources are independent, which means this article is fine as a “stand alone article”.

This article passes WP:CRIME because the “historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.” So, inconclusion, the notability of this article is covered by WP:CRIME WP:GNG and WP:BASIC for both, 1) this event being “worthy of notice”, and because of the many secondary independent sources that it covers, and; 2) There's 18 sources, including a Fox News article, a USA Today article (national coverage), as well as a book, court documents, and numerous local sources. Sarahrosemc (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are plenty of sources for the article to pass WP:GNG. I did a search on HighBeam and had 67 hits, most of the were AP articles and a couple of Washington Post articles and various other newspapers. He only has to meet one of two criteria in WP:PERPETRATOR and he appears to meet both. I am One of Many (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2014 (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.