Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Charles Haskett

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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Charles Haskett

Daniel Charles Haskett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Prurient. Unnotable person. Draggedpuppycruft. Granted that he shouldn't have dragged the puppy behind his truck, give the teen a break, he doesn't need this article dogging him for the rest of his life. In the Notes section, the latter two references are to YouTube vids of his car being surrounded by an angry mob; they are basically useless as references. The first reference is to an article where he is mentioned, but only in passing as the occasion for a particularly decrepit-looking MP to bloviate on the general theme of Something Must Be Done. It properly belongs as a reference in Myron Thompson and/or an article about the laws in question. Let this one go, Mneme.

(Here's another thing I love, you see this a lot: "The case has led to a great deal of controversy". O RLY, the No-Dragging-Puppies and the Hell-Yeah-Drag-Puppies camps are engaged in a fairly equal contest for the hearts and minds of Canadians... Serously, controversy? An untrue fact.) Herostratus 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I doubt this is exactly notable on an international scale. The "controversy" is very real but has to do with whether animal abuse should carry a stricter penalty. A true fact, but again, perhaps not notable. Personally, I hope he gets "dogged" by this for the rest of his life. --Charlene 15:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I certainly understand where the nominator is coming from in regards to the quality of the article. It is poorly written and a little over dramatized. However, this teen has definitely drawn the ire of animal rights activiists. Take this website for instance[1]. The problem is that the dog is getting more of the attention than the kid. Most of the articles that I came across in regards to this subject were geared toward the suffering of the dog rather than the plight of the young man. I don't think the soruces presented in the article assert his notability. Are his actions terrible and cruel? Absolutely. Will this case be remembered in 5 years? Probably not. There may have been an initial firestorm, but it will calm down. Surely they won't brand the kid for the rest of his life. --Cyrus Andiron 15:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The notability guidelines don't say anything about people who do something horrific that they inspire a country to pass laws, but they probably should.Chris Croy 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete under BLP until conviction. At this point there is only a news report. DGG 05:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Much of the article is a copy-and-paste copyvio from the one news article. DGG 05:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, at least for now. Subject is accused of crimes which have inspired efforts to have laws passed. If he is convicted, the bills become law, and -- most importantly -- we get more reliable sources, then it may be time to revisit. Until then, WP:BLP and WP:CRYSTAL both apply. Serpent's Choice 07:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep "Daisy Duke Petition" comes up with 1,350 references. It doesn't have to have laws passed to be a subject for Wikipedia, it just has to be referenced in "multiple, non trivial sources". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:34, 24 April 2007 (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.