- 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 no consensus. Normally such an article would default to keep, however, given the interplay of paid editing/COI/ in the article creation and sockpuppetry in this discussion I will delete the article. No prejudice to speedy recreation with reliable sourcing, and I will userfy a copy of this article on request. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert Ray Fry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:CRIME or WP:BIO for that matter; most likely created as a "companion" article to Fry's lawyer Stephen Aarons in an attempt to boost his perceived notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Meets the notability criteria under Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts was convicted of multiple separate killings.
WP Bio: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. - Known and verifiability convicted - which is available in government court records in three separate trials - Also is a Serial killer, and the subject of a book on his crimes. And is currently the last person schedule to die ever on death row in New Mexico, which makes Fry important to Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States, where repeal has been debated quite heavily. Meanie (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no significant depth of coverage from reliable sources. Your other opinions on why he is important are irrelevant to Wikipedia guidelines on notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So State court records are irrelevant?
https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-1116-CR-200000542 - 4 Charges in one trial - 4 convictions
https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-1116-CR-200000513 - 4 Charges in another trial - 4 convictions
https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-1116-CR-200001055 - 7 Charges in another trial - 6 convictions
https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-1116-CR-200001103 - 2 Charges represented by Aarons - 2 Dismissed
https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-1116-CR-9700788 - 5 Charges in another trial - 3 Convictions
19 convictions for violent crimes in New Mexico - all of which were the subject of intense media scrutiny and a book. Meanie (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Had you really read WP:BIO or WP:Reliable sources, you'd know that government records don't apply, and neither does a book by a non-notable author. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia Secondary Sources:Law "Legal writers usually prefer to cite primary sources because only primary sources are authoritative and precedential, while secondary sources are only persuasive at best.[25]" For wiki law the rules are different - Or do I misread - are court records not the authoritative voice? Its why we can say XYZ is a convicted criminal. Meanie (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Court records are fine to verify a statement, but court records and similar records do nothing to boost notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the Court records verify the criminality - I totally agree. Media sources also corroborate this.
In ONE paper in the state Robert Fry is brought up in 19 different articles, including by a candidate for governor in the state in the discussion about the 2009 Repeal and its after affects.
August 9th, 2012 - Death Penalty Challenges Still Haunt NM Courts - http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/08/09/news/death-penalty-challenges-still-haunt-nm-courts.html
August 9th, 2012 - States Look to NM on Executions - http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/04/09/news/states-look-to-nm-on-executions.html
January 28th, 2011 -AG's Office Argues for Penalty Phase - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/28238174864newsmetro01-28-11.htm
Dec 10, 2010 - Astorga Death Penalty Trial Can Proceed - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/032332537958newsmetro12-03-10.htm
June 8, 2010 - Dueling Over Death Penalty, invoked by candidate for Governor - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/082335485340newsstate06-08-10.htm
April 5, 2009 - Law Leaves Room for Executions - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/xgr/05104724state04-05-09.htm
Case related stories - 54 Hits in ABQ Journal Archives
December 9, 2005 - Killer's Verdict, Sentance Upheld - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/414937nm12-09-05.htm
May 25, 2005 - Court TV show Will Look at NM Killer - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/354061nm05-25-05.htm
And this is without getting into the Santa Fe New Mexican, the Santa Fe Reporter and the ABQ Tribune. It could be argued this case was as big in New Mexico, as Paul Bernardo was to Canada.
In the Media
Court TV : Forensic Files
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0986733/plotsummary
MSNBC Lockup
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/14346975#14346975 Meanie (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Never mind the bestselling dimestore paperback about this serial killer, the 8 unsolved murders believed to be his, or the fact he is the first defendant in US history to face three separate death penalty trials. Focus on one inescapable fact: the NM legislature and governor struck a political compromise by abolishing the death penalty for all future cases but keeping Fry on the chopping block. Can the government pass a law contemplating the execution of one person? It is a unique constitutional debate sure to drag on for years in the courts and wiki debates... Steve Aarons (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC) — Aar095 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First, he is not a serial killer. Not a spree killer, not a massmurderer, but a killer. He has a few murders under his belt, but so do a lot of people. If he, and his case, was so in need of an article why was it created now? It would appear that this article was created to provide a foundation for the lawyer's article which is also up for AfD. Regardless, this does not meet WP:CRIME and as a WP:BIO (ignoring the crime) he fails because of WP:BLP1E. PeterWesco (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cant believe you the fact this is the only person in the united states ever to have three separate death penalty trials, and will be the last person EVER to die on New Mexico death row, and is one of two people exempt from its 2009 repeal. By your logic Paul Bernardo is not a serial killer, and isnt notable. Meanie (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Paul Bernardo meets the term of serial killer because: he had a target profile (young girls), it was sexually related, he has a body count, etc. I find it comical you are comparing Fry to Bernardo. Fry does not meet any criteria of serial killer. "He will be the last person to die on NM death row" UNTIL the law is changed in the future. There can't be a "last person to die" on death row as the world is not over, laws can be changed, etc. He had three separate death penalty trials - That is noteworthy. It should be noteworthy under: "Botched police investigations" "Botched murder trials" "Wastes of tax payer's dollars". This is simply a case of a guy who did not get caught on his first killing, but was eventually caught and he was charge and sentenced. This is another example of why he also does not meet the serial killer label. PeterWesco (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was tempted to go through the crime project and flag anything for deletion which didn't have at least the notoriety of this guy in their state. Though that would likely be half of the project as most of them are notable for one act. Especially the 50% of death row inmates in America who have wiki pages. But Ill not do that because they are houses being built. This article is a week old - a multiple murderer who the media has been on about for years - and in New Mexico and surrounding areas they know him. Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built. I'd like to remind you, and Jamie in good faith of the aforementioned Wiki Ideal. This is a new article. Give it a chance to become something - and if its not notable and not well cited in a month lets get rid of it. But it was created last week. And I do do this for coffee money - I have a real job - I just like writing. But I wouldn't do it if I didn't think it didn't have a place. Meanie (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Wiki defines Serial_killer as "three or more" separate murders. Fry has been convicted of four separate murders and suspected in eight or more others in Four Corners. It's not just numbers: same target profile; same signature MO (pick up homeless Navajo person leaving bar, drive out to remote lands, rape if female, bludgeon to death, keep trophy). How can crime scenes spread out over years be WP:BLP1E? Recommend you ask Serial Killer Task Force for input, or delete Serial Killers as an independent basis of inclusion. Steve Aarons (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seem to pass WP:CRIME, per fact that he has gone trough three separate death penalty trials. and is likely to be the last man ever executed in New Mexico. Also good sourcing which indicates notability beyond an "everyday criminal".--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As cited before. Meets notability. Three separate death penalty trials (only person in US history), 4 different murders, over a number of years with convictions. Save a change in the law he will be the last person to die on NM death penalty under the post 71 restoration of the death penalty. Further was subject of fodder in the campaign for governor and has been subject of major media attention from his first trial through to the present. Boatingfaster (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ATTENTION AfD CLOSING ADMIN - There are 2 SockPuppet investigations going on with editors in this AfD discussion. Please do not close this AfD until all are identified/cleared of sock/meat puppetry.
- User: Steve Aarons Was part of a WP:COI/WP:PAID with the striked out sockmaster. He was pleading for this article to justify his own notability (his article has already been deleted) PeterWesco (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment However well intentioned may be Mr. Wesco's zeal, lining out everything said by Meanie and attacking me as well is a logical fallacy known as ad hominen. WP:NPA. "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." The lined out content remains uncontradicted: WP:NOT (a) Three separate death penalty jury trials; (b) four murder convictions over four year period; (c) prime suspect in eight other signature murders of Navajos in rugged Four Corners desert; (d) last man on death row in New Mexico (e) political football in gubernatorial election; (f) in line for the dubious distinction of being first man in US history to be executed AFTER his state abolished the death penalty (law specifically grandfathered him in) (g) subject of a bestselling dimestore novel by a notable true crime author. Compare articles in categories Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force and Stub-Class Serial killer-related articles SteveAarons (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Meanie et al were deemed sockpuckets. As such, sockpuppet comments and votes are routinely stuck from discussions. The striking through, and notes to the closing admin, are done as a service to the closing admin so they know that this discussion was tainted with sockpuppets, WP:COI, and WP:PAID. PeterWesco (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Meanie voted once and his sockpuppet boatingfaster voted once. I would line out the second keep; lining out all of his extensive citations is an attack on the person not the content. WP:COI AND WP:PAID are false and, again, personal attacks. What about the only relevant issue regarding deletion, Mr. Wesco - WP:NOT. Is this notorious serial killer "notable"? SteveAarons (talk) aar095 07:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not engaged in personal attacks, I am involved in stating facts. As I stated above, the comments, votes, and opinions of sockpuppets have zero value in the discussions. WP:NPOV is not possible with WP:COI. You can continue to argue this case, it is your choice, but I have already stated my views on the topic and no amount of lawyering is going to change that opinion. There are numerous other instances on Wikipedia where I have completely changed my opinion, when faced with facts presented from people I respect, and I have yielded my vote and left the AfD. To repeat: people I have respect for, people who's opinion means something, and people who are presenting facts from a NPOV. You are far from neutral on this topic, so your opinion on the matter means less than zero to me. Good day sir. PeterWesco (talk) 08:50, 5 January 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.
LOL I have no idea what a userfy is but the Robert_Ray_Fry was well referenced and i don't know how to make the pictures and boxes. Could you "userfy" it? Just before your put the article out of its misery, I asked a more experienced admin than I who contributes to the serial murder bio project to look it over for impartiality, notability etc. i thought i should check with you before doing anything crazy like cutting and pasting the old article back in! Please advise... aar095 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aar095 (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Hi. It looks like you've managed to run afoul of a few of our live wires. First, the whole paid editing controversy, which as you've seen arouses strong feelings in some. Then, it's generally frowned up to selectively request comment for deletion discussion, it is considered canvassing. Since this encyclopedia can be edited anonymously/pseudonymously, a great deal of weight in put upon transparency. Anyway, I've "userfied" the article to User:Aar095/sandbox/Robert Ray Fry, where it can be worked on until it meets the standards for inclusion. It will not be indexed by search engines while in your user space, and is not considered part of the encyclopedia proper. Please note that anyone still is free to edit the article, so it technically is not "yours" although it is in "your" space. The best thing for this article would be some national coverage of the case. Have there been any law review articles about the case, or scholarly treatment of the procedural posture of the case? That's the kind thing that would give you an unambiguous case of notability. Also, I should mention that if you wish my deletion is subject to deletion review where decision can by evaluated to see whether it adequately conforms our deletion process. Finally, you can automatically sign and date your entries (transparency again) by adding four tildes after your entry like this ~~~~. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sandbox entry; I didn't want to reinvent the wheel. A $5 finder fee is far from WP:PAID advocacy. There needs to be some mentorship program because your culture is extremely elaborate to a newcomer. I felt like I need a lawyer to wade through your guidelines! As for reviewing your "no consensus" deletion, it was a close call but frankly I would have pulled the plug too because of the accusations unless and until an established and impartial editor from the Serial Killer task force weighs in on the relevant issue. I did read the canvassing guideline and, as recommended, I used a neutral request to 3-4 people who have contributed to the Serial Killer Bio project recently, not to stuff the ballot, but to clarify WP:NOT for those working on hundreds of mid- and low-importance serial killer stubs (see below). Your expectation of national publicity (there was a CBS News interview of Fry somewhere and the dimestore novel sold nationally) is just one example that has not been applied uniformly to hundreds of other articles. Should national coverage be a prerequisite? Don't ask me, I'm just a meatpuppet! /s/ SA
PS I am using four tildes now: aar095 22:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
insert
