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. WP:BLP1E weighs in favour of deletion unless or until a better home for this content is found. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael LaHood, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Procedural nomination. Original CSD-reason was A7, this has been declined. Declining editor indicated that the discussion on the article's talk page should be brought to AfD. Personally, I think both arguments have their merits and remain neutral. Malc82 (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Info The concerns I initially raised were WP:BIO, WP:HARMLESS and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. User:Dtrebbien (the original author) countered these arguments at the article's talk page. Malc82 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Meredith Emerson was recently deleted as was the baby who was thrown off the overpass in Hawaii (can't remember his name to look it up, I believe that one went to Deletion Review as well. I can't see the Emerson AfD, however I believe the logic was she was more suited for WikiNews than an encyclopedia. I believe the same applies here, however if the article could be sourced to why he was notable other than for being killed, I'd change my vote. Travellingcari (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with this case, but from preliminary Google'ing, it seems that her killer has not been found. There is a suspect, but he has not been convicted.

Pled guilty and sentenced to life in prison. Travellingcari (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, the co-trial for the murderer of Michael LaHood was very public, internationally, because of the capital punishment case of Kenneth Foster who was sentenced to death per Texas' then-new "law of parties" statute. « D. Trebbien (talk) 23:41 2008 February 2 (UTC)

Also, there is a page for Natalee Holloway, so the line is very blurred. « D. Trebbien (talk) 23:43 2008 February 2 (UTC)

No comment on that other than WP:OTHERSTUFF, which generally is not a valid argument. Travellingcari (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you cited WP:OTHERSTUFF; I can interpolate one of the given examples to "Delete We do not have an article on Meredith Emerson, so we should not have an article on this." as a counter-point. « D. Trebbien (talk) 16:47 2008 February 3 (UTC)

No, her argument is "we just deleted article x because of rationale y, which also applies here". That's not a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Jfire (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page begins with:

The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in deletion debates for templates, images, categories, stub types, redirects and especially articles which should generally be avoided, or at least, supplemented with some more arguments.

One of those arguments to be avoided is "Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this.", one that you made. « D. Trebbien (talk) 17:58 2008 February 3 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what OTHERSTUFF refers to. "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this" is not the same as "We deleted x for reason y, which is a reason to delete this article as well." This is called a precedent and is a valid argument. Jfire (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is your y "Michael LaHood, Jr. is more suited for Wikinews"? « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:47 2008 February 3 (UTC)

• Keep See the Talk page. Also, where are interested individuals to look if they have questions about the victim? I can tell you that there is practically no information on him in the first 22 pages of Google results. « D. Trebbien (talk) 23:34 2008 February 2 (UTC)
  • Comment Look to the news? I see a fair amount of coverage not to mention the first four hits including a site dedicated to him. I go back to WP:MEMORIAL on this. Travellingcari (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Michael LaHood, Jr." was my query and I opened and read practically all of the results in the first 22 pages of Google results for this. There is practically no information in all of this; there is a sentence here and there, which is how I pieced together that which is currently on Michael LaHood, Jr., but I was somewhat disgusted that all of these pages are basically about Kenneth Foster's trials and "tribulations". The phrase "Michael LaHood, Jr." was mentioned, but his role was always marginalized to "that guy who was shot in the head clear through by a bullet from a .44-caliber pistol fired at close range". Those details are all there.

I saw http://michaellahoodjr.com/, too, but if you visit the page, it currently says "Coming soon". There is no indication that this will ever become a remembrance site, however.

« D. Trebbien (talk) 16:42 2008 February 3 (UTC)

• Delete The arguments from WP:BIO and WP:MEMORIAL have not been addressed; dtrebbien even admits above an inability to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments as to the inapplicability of WP:BIO and WP:MEMORIAL have been given on the Talk page. Also, I do not admit an inability to find significant coverage in reliable sources; There are hundreds of sources that mention him, the problem is finding information about him.

What is on the article page is information that is replicated in many of those sources. « D. Trebbien (talk) 17:52 2008 February 3 (UTC)

"Inability to find information about him" is the very definition of lack of substantial coverage or verifiability. Jfire (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What is on the article page is information that is replicated in many of those sources." « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:47 2008 February 3 (UTC)

• Delete. WP is not a memorial. Quale (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please comment as to why you think WP:MEMORIAL applies? I have argued on the article's Talk page that it doesn't. « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:19 2008 February 5 (UTC)

Your argument on the talk page is completely without merit. LaHood is known for nothing of encyclopedic interest except for his tragic death. He does not meet any criteria of WP:BIO, and if he had not been murdered you wouldn't have written the article. This is a textbook case of WP:MEMORIAL. If there is to be an article on this at all, it should be written about the crime itself or the criminal. I am really puzzled how you can argue that this isn't an obvious memorial. Writing an article about a person solely because he was a victim of a crime is usually a bad idea. Quale (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the criminals in the case, Kenneth Foster, has an article, which I invite you (and anyone reading this) to read because you mentioned writing an article about the criminal. Ask yourself after reading it why you wouldn't tag that article with AfD or ProD. (If you would, then there is no point reading further. I am begging the question to try to demonstrate that this is not a "textbook case of WP:MEMORIAL".)

These two articles are extremely similar when you think about it. Foster is not notable by himself and there certainly wouldn't be an article on him had he not been involved in the crime, according to your reasoning. Also, depending on whom one asks (read the blogs that mention "Kenneth Foster" for an idea of whom), Kenneth Foster, like Michael LaHood, was a victim (in his case, of societal injustice) and the page is indeed a memorial to the "tragedy" which played out in the courts. And Kenneth Foster was mentioned just as often as Michael LaHood, through hundreds of independent sources, a few of which are in Italian and German. So I have to ask, if you wouldn't tag his page with AfD, then why would support an action to delete Michael LaHood, Jr.?

And how many people have their name mentioned all over the Internet like that? I think that if someone is mentioned well over a hundred times in well over one hundred, independent sources, then they certainly are worthy of note, or notable, because those well over one hundred writers have already chosen to note him.

These are important things to think about. « D. Trebbien (talk) 05:51 2008 February 6 (UTC)

• Temporary keep and redirect eventually. The first paragraph of the article is a memorial, the second paragraph discusses the tragic murder. In general, victims of crimes have done nothing to get into the tragedy, and for reasons of decency we avoid writing articles about them. However, this this is a death penalty case making the crime notorious and hence "notable"; an article on the murderer might be justified. One might argue that it should not be so, but the murderer does receive more attention and achieves more "notability" (though in a horrible and negative way) because of the trial and execution. In this case an article could be made at Mauriceo Mashawn Brown, (#370 in List of individuals executed in Texas). At present, that article has not been created, and deleting this article will lose the only bit of information we have on a notable murder. Once the article on Brown is made covering the crime, redirect this article there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there's already an article on Kenneth Foster. The crime may have been notable, the victim isn't. D.Trebbien doesn't like WP:OTHERSTUFF or precedent but there has been some set. Meredith Emerson has made it back to deletion review. WP:BLP1E applies here, as someone indicated above -- he wouldn't have been notable at all if not for being killed. Travellingcari (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, with the article on Kenneth Foster, we can redirect this article there. I agree with you that BLP1E applies in this case (hence my "temporary keep" qualifier). (As a side note, OTHERSTUFF arguments can be good or they can be bad depending on the circumstances of the argument. One should consider such arguments as any other good faith argument.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I am ok with the idea at Meredith Emerson's deletion review where it was requested that the article be undeleted and moved to Murder of Meredith Emerson. If there is a Murder of Michael LaHood, Jr., then Kenneth Foster, Michael LaHood, Jr., and Mauriceo Mashawn Brown can redirect there. « D. Trebbien (talk) 15:35 2008 February 6 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. While LaHood's death is tragic, there are sadly enough murder victims to make that category not inherently notable, and the controversy surrounding the trial is really about the accused, not the victim. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 12:19, 10 February 2008 (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.