Talk:Thomas Lee Ward

Notability?

Is being executed for murder, unpleasant though both may be, sufficient cause for inclusion in a general encyclopedia?  Not convinced, David Kernow 02:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your not alone in your view. I had to go through a AfD on Dobie Gillis Williams soon after I created that article. As I stated at that time and in AfDs on other executed killers, I beleive this information is important and notable becasue of the ongoing debate about the death penalty in America today. I try to write these articles in very dry NPOV format as used in the courts that reviewed these cases so that people engaged in this debate can have a NPOV review of these cases. Also note that Ward is one of a little over one thousand people that have been executed in the United State since the reinstatement of capital punishment. Nolamgm 12:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Nolamgm. I saw the Dobie Gillis Williams article and accompanying discussion after posting the above; if as with that article there is something beyond Ward's conviction and execution that you could include or elaborate – perhaps something about his trial? – then I'd say you'd reduce the chances of it being nominated for deletion significantly. Best wishes, David Kernow 17:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Ward has anything exciting about his case. Again I think he is notable just becase he was executed. If you disagree then nominate this article and the others I have created. You will not hurt my feelings. Nolamgm 18:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Having found a few without trying, I'm sure there must be many "articles" out there that merit deletion far more than this one, so you'll need to find someone more deletionist than me for your nomination!  Regardless of notability, I think it's a page that would give Wikipedia credit if it happened to be the first page read by a new user – and perhaps even if it happened to be read by a deletion-crazed notability freak. Yours, David 21:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC

Why aren't there articles on the victims of these scumbag criminals? I'm so tired of people caring more about the criminals than the victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5802:AA00:DD09:5C1:D4F:A0AE (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

But there are many articles about the victims of these criminals, some are even named after the victims, too. But this is one of them as well, though it is named after the criminal concerned. It is much harder to write whole articles about victims because they are often far less notable, often only being know only as being the victim of a crime, Properly written, an article about a criminal is also one about the victims of the crime(s) the criminal commits. One cannot properly tell the story of the criminal without telling the story of the victim(s) too. This is what a neutral point of view is all about. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's notability criteria require an article be given a title that is most commonly used to describe a crime. Often, that is the name of the person that committed the crime especially if their trial, conviction, imprisonment and death is more notable because of the media coverage. Please do not shoot the messenger. Wikipedia is simply reflecting a social bias that focuses on offenders, rather than victims, especially in media coverage, because that is what society is choosing the media to cover by reading the articles with the sensational headlines about the perpetrators of crime much more than anything about victims, so we have more reporting about the criminals than the victims to work with. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)