Michael and Sharen Gravelle: - UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Crime , United States of America ,  and Ohio .  UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The trial gained international attention and brought many inadequacies of the adoption services systems in Ohio to the fore.  Strongly suggests that this is not a WP:BLP1E case.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 16:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That may imply the case is notable, but not these people.  - UtherSRG (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which is clearly about these people!  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean you just restructure instead of delete in that case, usually.  That's how BLP1E issues are usually solved, if there isn't already an article on the event, convert it to be on the event.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 18:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There's likely a wiki article that could be written about the law that was passed, not about this pair.  A two year sentence isn't really notable (rather sad that's all they got in my eyes), but still doesn't affect their notability.  They could be worked into an article about the new state law, or Adoption in Ohio or something similar.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but retarget to either an article that incorporates content on broader laws that were passed, or a more event/case focused article.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 01:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as this case in very infamous.  Davidgoodheart ( talk ) 16:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Davidgoodheart : That is not a policy-based argument.  What you are arguing for is WP:INHERIT , which is explicitly a disallowed deletion argument.  - UtherSRG (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] INHERIT implies that there is an article on this case: there isn't.  So if the case is notable just reconfigure it.  The complaint is BLP1E, and the way to solve that is restructuring the article, not deleting.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 16:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Notability requires sustained SIGCOV of a topic, and this couple has not received it.  Coverage of the case may warrant a merge into another article though.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 06:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , it seems that there is sigcov from different sources in the years following this.  NPR , CBS-AP .  However, I agree with others that the article should be reframed to focus on the case and not its perpetrators.  Lettlre ( talk ) 17:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - per sigcov.  Pretty clear this has remained in the public eye.  Also per WP:GNG.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 14:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and eventify .  The core thing that has lasting notability here is more the abuse case than the people itself, and we don't presently have an article on the abuse case.  Rather than having a pseudo-bio, it would be better to cover the event (which has lasting notability due to the effects on subsequent legislation) than the couple, in line with WP:1E ( The general rule is to cover the event ).  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:43, 19 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus