Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kermit Gosnell

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) nerdfighter 20:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Kermit Gosnell

Kermit Gosnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: "Kermit Gosnell" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR · free images · wikipedia library)

I think this page should be deleted for several reasons. First, it is about a living, alleged perpetrator. Per WP:BIO, "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Second, this person does not meet other notability criteria. His case has not received national attention. It is a local multiple-murder story in Pennsylvania, nothing more. Mellie107 (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• SNOW Keep 369,000 Google Search hits for the subject[1], with stories in major national outlets. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• snow keep There is plenty of coverage about this subject. I could see renaming the article, possibly, but the way to handle any WP:BIO issues is to edit the article, not delete it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 12. Snotbot  t • c »  04:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Very significant international coverage. Easily meets WP:CRIMINAL. Mkdw^talk 07:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:CRIMINAL clearly advises "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Article can be recreated if a conviction is secured. - Dravecky (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:GNG is met and this incident has received serious coverage and consideration even in the case of no conviction yet. Secondly, that instruction is a cautionary note on the bottom, but not meant to supersede criteria #2: Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. His investigation has be so widely noted that using a lack of conviction, which also does not preclude articles of that type to not be created, would be borderline "asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express" -WP:WL. But I certainly understand your point. Mkdw^talk 07:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As the trial is a current event, how can there be coverage "which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage"? By definition, it's all contemporaneous for now. - Dravecky (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Fortuntely the 2013 trial coverage is only a small fraction of the coverage the article relies on in which in 2011 broke onto the international stage. Two very different in nature, separated by years , and in the legal world of criminal investigations, a lengthy period of time to even reach pleas, with strong inductors that this has already affected state policies, political senate campaigns, and some calling it the most horrific case of feticide. Mkdw^talk 12:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep --Jayarathina (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep its also part of a wider debate on Abortion and does not relate solely to the criminal case but could also involve a large discussion by both pro choice and pro life advocates as to abortion providers (im sure the discourse exists specific to him and ill go find it but I wasnt up for adding to the article unless a decision has been made and as im not an experienced wiki user im not sure what the layout of a BIO requires etc) --Fredbobhurst (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - Fredbobhurst stated it perfectly. TJIC (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP This very deletion request is a WP:NPOV violation. This story has been supressed, and needs to be brought to light. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 13:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This story is very important because the main stream media refuses to cover it. It involves alleged of beheading babies that survived abortions and people searching may only find this article since there are barely any stories from the major news outlets. ClassicallyLiberal (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - Plenty of sources from reliable groups. Details are gruesome enough that this goes beyond a 'local crime story' (Jodi Arias, anyone?). No reason to delete other than to suppress a less-than-favorable instance regarding abortion. Toa Nidhiki05 13:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, but rewrite majorly. At present the article flagrantly violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV - we are not a tabloid news outlet. I'd recommend stubbifying the page to a bare minimum of sourced biographical detail and a mention of the trial, with the prospect of expansion in the future if and only if a conviction is secure. Otherwise, we might as well be working for The Sun. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The fact that this article is even being considered for deletion speaks to the idiocy and ideological blinders of some Wikipedia administrators/editors. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Luke Sneeringer (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is a significant story affecting a major matter of national policy, irrespective of specific media coverage. It deserves to remain; deleting it sends a far stronger message than leaving it in. WesternActor (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I believe you should keep the page but only refer to known facts, like his name - occupation - and what he has been charged with and why. I don't think you should use quotes from victims and/or possible witnesses at this point until the trial is under way and it is public knowledge. I am not trying to protect him, but don't think it is Wikipedia's job to report the news, just the facts.Terryoaka (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Terry you are misinformed - "at this point" the trial has been in session since March 18 "until the trial is under way" it is underway! Perhaps the reason you're unaware is "and it is public knowledge." because of a blatant media blackout (refer to twitter #Gosnell) and the discomfiture of the location of the crime scene -- not in some obscure slum 'hood section of the Philly Badlands -- 15 minute walking distance from U Penn Wharton Drexel University_of_the_Sciences (former Philadelphia College of Pharmacy (PCP), the first college of pharmacy in the nation)? People knew this place existed close to the rail station easy to for out of towners like Karnamaya Mongar to find, and then... die there. MrsKrishan (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP as long as 2012 Aurora Shooting is considered apt. Perhapts it should be renamed to the crime rather than the accused? -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think it might make sense to rename this to be about the crime, and not a bio about Gosnell. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Article in its current state contains many violations of WP:BLP. These should be immediately removed. — goethean 16:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP First, Dr. Gosnell has had his licensed revoked in one state, suspended in another, and surrendered in a third state. Thus, at least one final action by an adjudicating body has occurred. Moreover, all three medical boards have found Gosnell to be a public threat. Thus, despite a lack of CRIMINAL conviction (yet), this man has been adjudicated as a threat to the public safety and welfare of three states by medical boards. Second, this is no more a local crime issue than Trayvon Martin or the Connecticut school shooting, which are covered by Wiki. Third, abortion regulation is a national and even international discussion. Fourth, the facts behind Gosnell's licensure revocation(s) and criminal trial have been suppressed by the USA mainstream liberal media, but not by other media outlets, as evidenced by hundreds of thousands of Google hits. Fifth, cherry picked deletions of "uncomfortable" (to a liberal) subjects such as this negative abortion entry would reveal political bias on Wiki's part, and in that case I and my friends would like our donations to Wiki returned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216:37, 12 April 2013‎ (talk) 216.201.171.182
• Keep Rename to Trial of Kermit Gosnell (with appropriate rewrite) The article is not about a particular person who has been accused of a local crime of transient notoriety but about the well documented facts surrounding the involvement of a person in the ensuing investigation of an event of demonstrable historical significance and international notoriety. Whether or not there has been a "suppression of information in the media" is irrelevant to this purpose; this type of allegation itself should not be speculated upon or even mentioned unless it is otherwise independently verified and well sourced (a perceived lack of coverage in a segment of the media or on any regional scale does not itself invalidate the notability otherwise proven). The issue is not about "bringing a suppressed story to light" (WP:NOTNEWS) but the encyclopedic documentation of the enduringly notable person and event ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.").  Jim Reed (Talk)  20:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC) (UPDATED)  Jim Reed (Talk)  16:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP* This story is not just a "local story" it has been heard around the country and the world! Millions of people have an opinion on the matter whether for or against and this story help people to learn about the Facts of the case! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC0D:4E39:5B9:EF1D:8AA4:E912 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP Even this AfD request is international news right now. Besides that, we're now up to 498,000 Google results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PsychoInfiltrator (talk • contribs) 17:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• ←KEEP!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Sneeringer (talk • contribs) 16:25, 12 April 2013‎
• STRONG KEEP There are plenty of examples of current criminal events that are on Wikipedia where the conviction(s) have not been secured. This is a big case, because it is more than abortions, it is accusations of violations of laws regarding a hot topic in politics in not only the U.S. and the World. Just because the media is deciding not to cover it does not make it any less relevant. This Artcile should be kept just as other individuals who are on, or about to be on trial for crimes they are accused of. Using social/political beliefs to justify deleting a page on wikipedia is wrong. --Redsoxunixgeek (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment:This AfD entry is in the news now (e.g., [2] (it starts with Wikipedia, the online dictionary and research web site...) and [3])···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 18:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Snow keep I'm assuming good faith. I find it difficult to see how this doesn't meet WP:GNG. Extensive, extensive media coverage worldwide. Any issues raised by WP:BIO should be covered by editing the facts of the article. Roodog2k (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Now even the proposed deletion itself is making news. [4] PeRshGo (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP! Threatening to delete this page proves even further the media blackout surrounding this horrific news. This story needs to be brought to light! It is not just some local murder news. It is a part of the wider pro-life pro-abortion debate on whether or not abortion needs to be made illegal. This story clearly illustrates the true horrific nature of abortion which everyone is aware of but some of us want to hide from the truth. Pls keep this page open! Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimei duru (talk • contribs) 18:44, 12 April 2013‎

• Comment Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WP:SOAPBOX. Having said that, keeping this article is a no-brainer. Meets WP:GNG easily. Roodog2k (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I can't believe this is even being debated. Obviously newsworthy. --MikeJ9919 (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep As alleged is not yet proven guilty, possibly create stub and lock edits. However, I note that many former employees have confessed already to crimes. This is very newsworthy. Renaissongsman (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP I agree with Charlie from Colorado. This incident is just as notable as Newtown, Aurora, George Tiller or many others. The mere fact that some want to delete this shows the incredibly effective blinders many on the left wear.
• STRONG RENAME to Trial of Kermit Gosnell. Nominating this article for deletion is clearly absurd, this is a very notable national news story so the nominator's second point is asinine. However, the nominator's first point is valid -- there is no conviction of Kermit Gosnell yet no matter how likely that will be. Wikipedia policy is to frame the article around the event, not the person, until (or if) their is a conviction. Recent examples of this are Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman which redirect to Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Casey Anthony which redirects to Death of Caylee Anthony. An example of a convicted criminal who has their own article would be Mark David Chapman which does not redirect to Death of John Lennon since the convicted criminal himself is notable. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 19:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would tend to agree.Roodog2k (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• I agree also; I changed my position as noted.  Jim Reed (Talk)  20:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep WP:GNG is met due to the nature of the alleged offenses. WP:CRIMINAL advises: "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." However, the "unusual" details of the "execution" of the alleged offenses meets notability criteria. Under no circumstances is deletion warranted here; at best, moving the article to one which is not a bio of Gosnell. However, the current criminal trial has focused on Gosnell. The article could be renamed to something less useful like, "Trial of Women's Medical Society employees," but the attention of the courts and what coverage there has been is clearly on Gosnell, so what point does that serve, except to abide by a Wikipedia guideline while violating its spirit?Basil Fritts (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep This is not a minor criminal matter, but an alleged multiple murder that has had significant media coverage and has important policy issues. The editor who nominated this article for deletion should read up on WP:AFD. If an article contains errors, it should be edited to fix the errors, not deleted. Biccat (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Certainly meets notability guidelines. Suggested removal seems like a POV push. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Deleting the topic altogether would be a completely bizarre decision. Just because the media ignore the trial of a suspected serial killer whose case doesn't fit their political agenda should not be a reason to ignore it on Wikipedia. Gosnell is tried for eight homicides, but there are indications that he may have committed hundreds of murders which would make him one of the most prolific serial killers in history. However, since he hasn't been convicted yet, I would agree to change the page to the event instead of the person for the time being.Franklludwig (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting that Wiki wants this story suppressed, probably for the same reason the media wants it suppressed: because a story about a monster abortionist might give cover to pro-choicers. Sad, really.RMc (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• In addition to the nominator, only one other person made an argument in support of deleting the article, so I don't track with what you're saying. This clearly meets WP:GNG, even if the article name must change. In addition, this article clearly falls under WP:SNOW, as there is nothing more to gain from this conversation. Someone should close this AfD. Roodog2k (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Why exactly would hiding the results of banning abortion and poor regulation be appropriate? This is a very important case. If you want to replace it with discussion of the court trial or his clinic, that would be appropriate, but to scrub the history from wikipedia seems barbarous. 174.62.69.11 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• The concensus seems clear that this article should be kept in some form. I am assuming good faith when I say that the nominator for this AfD had the best intentions. Read carefully into what I am saying when I say "assuming good faith." Personal feelings aside, I don't believe that the nom's argument holds any water. Roodog2k (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's be nice to think that but when the story broke out YEARS ago [5], it got plenty of notability. However this is the trial phase right now where the jury decision may come out. The standard can apply to ANYONE who is under trial. Marc Peterson got craploads of coverage because of Greta on Fox News and yet he was ACCUSED during the entire coverage. This person coming out of inactivity of editing comes out to request an AfD on a controversial case? I know that it's unfair to say that we shouldn't be biased against inactive editors but when the case is controversial and the AfD deletion request comes shortly after it starts to become a bit more covered especially by Jake Tapper (notability there!), people gets some ideas to down play the issue.
• So my vote is a Keep and I want this AfD failed request to be noted on record to prevent it from being deleted again in the future ViriiK (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - I have no doubt that the fanatical ultrareligionist anti-abortion retards are having very noisy orgasms over the existence of this piece, but the subject meets GNG. It's a POV catastrophe, of course, and needs to be fixed by somebody who understands what the fuck Wikipedia is actually about. Carrite (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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.