This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Text and/or other creative content from Murdaugh family was copied or moved into Randolph Murdaugh Sr. with this edit on March 11, 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments3 people in discussion
Moving this here:
Discussion begun elsewhere re:notability of this subject
Comment: There could honestly be a few biographies spinned from this if editors want to do the research. Randolph Sr and Jr both served in political office for decades and there is probably enough sourcing in either upcoming books on the family or in newspaper archives. Alex probably has enough WP:RS on his life readily available online now that he could have an independent article put together pretty easily. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I went ahead and wrote Randolph Murdaugh Sr. and I might write pages for the other two elected Murdaughs. I don't foresee myself writing Alex's page tho if someone else wants to try and do that one. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm really not sure why those pages were created. Neither of those individuals meets WP:GNG, and per WP:POLITICIAN, they don't get a page just because they were local politicians. And the coverage seems of them seems to be very limited beyond the trial and crimes of Alex Murdaugh and alleged crimes of his immediate family. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
An upcoming book about a specific topic isn't enough to meet a notability threshold. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
WP:POLITICIAN is a presumption of notability policy; they don't have to meet its requirements to have a page and it doesn't say they don't get a page just because they were local politicians. Local politicians like mayors and district attorney's can still meet WP:GNG which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You're focusing on the recent coverage of these individuals which has covered the family almost exclusively in terms of the trial and crimes of Alex Murdaugh, but this family has been in politics in South Carolina since 1920, there are over 100 years of researchable WP:RS in newspaper archives like Newspapers.com. Be careful not to fall into WP:RECENTISM, especially :::::Articles deleted despite concerning notable trans-historical subject matter, because a recentist article has given only flimsy and transient details available in news reports without the accompanying historical perspective, and because editors proposing deletion don't bother to research.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oh believe me, I've done the research. They don't meet the notability threshold. They are run of the mill public officials. That's all. Local public officials are not notable and just because the family is embroiled in controversy, they don't each deserve their own page. A Murdaugh family page suffices. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
From WP:POLITICIAN: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. These individuals are not major local political figures. I think both of them deserve a mention here but on their own do not see enough significant coverage of them to warrant individual pages. Casual mentions of them in the press (talking about press prior to any of the murder stuff) is not enough to establish significance.
WP:RECENTISM is thrown around as justification for articles and it's kind of silly in my opinion, it's not a policy or guideline but an essay,
I've provided some searches on newspapers.com to show that these two were no more outstanding than other solicitors in the state. They're local officials, albeit from a family of solicitors, nothing more.
My point is that there is nothing special about them, and that while they are public officials, it's better to only have a family page than individual pages for them. Redirects could even point to relevant sections on this page.
Randolph Murdaugh III, has significant coverage for holding office 20 years, receiving the Order of the Palmetto, and of course his direct potential relation to the current controversy involving the family.
Plus I think it's important to note there is plenty of available sourcing that hasn't been researched yet. These articles are all improvable with WP:RS from sources like Newspapers.com and new WP:RS on the family being written daily. None of them are going to be featured articles anytime soon, but they're WP:V and the cite WP:RS to cover individuals WP:notable to South Carolina history. I think you were right to AfD Duffie Stone and I don't plan to contest that nomination, but these individuals seemed to me to meet the criteria for major local politicians. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think coverage of the death of someone doesn't necessarily imply notability. I think keeping Randolph Murdaugh Sr. is fine but the others are solely public officials with very little significance beyond their name and role. Order of the Palmetto isn't a claim to notability. I think that the two younger Murdaughs would be fine redirecting to this page, would you contest that? If so, I'd really appreciate other opinions. I just disagree that they are notable enough to warrant pages and would like consensus on that matter. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
No real opinion. Probably better to discuss at those articles' talks, though, as no one stumbling across those articles would realize there's a discussion about them elsewhere. Valereee (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Understandable, I think we just differ on opinions here. I mostly like to write articles on state and local politicians so I do have a bias in favor of inclusion here. Maybe one of us should post to a noticeboard for additional opinions? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Maybe, I think we can wait a little bit for the discussion here to mature. If there's no clear consensus we could take it to a noticeboard. Right now, it's just my opinion against yours. So if others chime in on either side and there's a majority, I'll recognize whatever that is. If there's no comment we could go to a noticeboard. I'm all for getting to a solution that makes the most sense for the encyclopedia. Not trying to single you out, promise. :) Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
