Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert George Clements

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. nomination withdrawn and solid keep arguments put forward. This can be snowed as an obvious outcome Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert George Clements

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

Criminal who fails WP:PERP - nothing other than routine coverage. Claritas § 20:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article should be fleshed out, but scholarly articles such as this BMJ one mention the case (moreover, footnote 10 in the article cites "Gaute JHH, Odell R. The new murderers' who's who."). It therefore has historical/academic importance, i.e. notability. Malick78 (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that such a small amount of coverage does not establish any particular significance. See the examples of notable criminals nbed at WP:PERP. Claritas § 10:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for perpetrators. According to the article, he is only a "alleged perpetrator". Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being alleged doesn't preclude being notable. Google books shows 22 mentions of this guy. This is far from the "small amount of coverage" that Claritas mentions. Bear in mind that some notable things are written about more in print than on the net. Note also that WP:PERP's third point is "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy". Here, the execution of the crime is clearly unusual or notable. Malick78 (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the motivation (money) and the execution (morphine overdose) were not unusual. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was a doctor using his medical knowledge and professional relationships to get away with murder. 22 books writing about it suggests others think that's unusual/noteworthy. Btw, I think morphine as a murder weapon was unusual back then, though it is perhaps less so now. Malick78 (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fleshed it out a bit more with the use of snippet views from Google books. It seems clear to me that a fuller article is possible if someone with access to the books in question works on it. I think, though, that even at this stage the books cited so far establish that there is a significant amount of information out there on this subject. Malick78 (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for being only "allegedly" a murderer, please note that he killed himself before capture and therefore there was no trial. A second post-mortem did however find that his fourth wife had died from a morphine overdose. Malick78 (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite plainly a notable case, it gained international coverage at the time and the enduring coverage makes notability clear. Quit lawyering over WP:PERP. Fences&Windows 01:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom. - this was laziness on my part. I'd prefer it if people didn't accuse me of lawyering though - assume good faith and that I'm stupid (or simply human). Claritas § 20:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's already one delete comment; it can't be closed right now. —fetch ·comms 03:03, 8 September 2010 (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.