Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amzi Armstrong

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. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amzi Armstrong

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

Murdered minister fails WP:VICTIM. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per WP:LASTING. Nothing remarkable about the murder. LibStar (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Nothing remarkable about the murder" is not a criterion for exclusion from Wikipedia. WP:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". If a murder took place in 1910 and is written up in Seven Jersey Murders in 2003, that would be the definition of lasting. -Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why are you talking about a bike race like criterium? LibStar (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, but I don't think that a seventh of a single book counts as more than a blip. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A seventh of a book from a major selective publisher would certainly go a long way towards demonstrating notability. The problem with that source isn't the amount of coverage, but that it is self-published via Xlibris. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been established. I note that the sources provided reflect the subject's name in a list; a 1910 report of the funeral; an account of the subject's murder in a self-published book (Seven Jersey Murders), which itself lacks evidence of notability; and an obituary of the subject. A search for additional sources provided nothing that would serve to support notability. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 22:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article hasn't established notability. As for "Seven Jersey Murders", there isn't enough information from the book to establish notability at this time. The book could be a treasure trove of biographical information about the subject. It could be the basis for an article about his wife. It could also potentially be used for an article about the murderer, or it could be used as the basis for an article about the murder. The book could be used for all sorts of things, if someone editing here has actually read it. It's fairly clear it hasn't been read, as its only being used as a back up reference for the fact that Armstrong was murdered. If the source actually had been read, one would assume editors would use it to actually give details about the murder. If someone actually read the book, I'm sure they would be able to state why this murder was vicious enough to be included. They also would likely know if the victims were stabbed or shot. Since July 2011, our article stated they were stabbed to death. The article from the New York observer that was added says they were shot. One would assume that "Seven Jersey Murders", which is being touted as proof that this has lasting notability, would give us more details than the obituaries. None of that is in the article. Citing a source without reading it is extremely, extremely irresponsible. AniMate 19:37, 18 June 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.