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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasmerge‎ to2015 Clinton Correctional Facility escape. Basically the argument being advanced here is one ofWP:NOPAGE, where a subject might meet GNG but is given better context covered in a parent article rather than standalone. I recognize that there is some coverage of his individual crimes, but I think Coretheapple's argument that the coverage is local is convincing that Matt is notable primarily in the context of the escape and would be better covered there. ♠PMC♠(talk)14:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Matt (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) – (View log |edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL)

Uncontested merge was reverted, so I am commencing this AfD to obtain community input seeking amerge with2015 Clinton Correctional Facility escape.

This article was unsuccessfully proposed for deletion ten years ago, and since then it has become abundantly clear that an article on Matt is not warranted perWP:ONEEVENT. Prior to soaring to fame for this one incident, he was a lethal but non-notable criminal who did not warrant an article perWP:CRIMINAL.

WP:CRIMINAL states that articles about criminals are warranted only when:

"1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or

2. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

Clearly neither applies to Matt.Coretheapple (talk)17:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I neglected to include a sentence preceding the quote fromWP:CRIMINAL:

"Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:" <emphasis added> (and then the two criteria were listed.)

There obviously is such an "appropriate existing article."2015 Clinton Correctional Facility escape.Coretheapple (talk)13:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering that we have the2015 Clinton Correctional Facility escape (of which Richard Matt was central to) with 55 references on it, I'd say that the escape itself is a "well-documented historic event". Sustained coverage is continuing. In 2018 miniseries was made about the escape, and that was still being written about in people.com in 2024, six years after the series and nine years after the escape[1]. Ten years after Richard Matt's death, and people are still writing about him[2][3]. There's sustained coverage about the escape, and sustained coverage about Matt. I'll also note that thefirst AfD on this article was, other than the nominator, strongly unanimous in keeping the article.Notability is not temporary, and the coverage has been sustained. --Hammersoft (talk)17:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum and seeing PARAKANYAA's comment below, extensive coverage about Matt existed before the 2015 prison escape. TheWP:BLP1E claim is provably incorrect. --Hammersoft (talk)13:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in thedeletion sorting lists for the following topics:People,Crime, andNew York.Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)}17:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: to the 2015 escape article. This person isn't notable outside of the escape and since they've passed away, are very unlikely to become more notable. Two murders is still horrible, but this isn't Al Capone here...Oaktree b (talk)19:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to2015_Clinton_Correctional_Facility_escape#Richard_Matt.The incident is notable but Matt does not appear to be independent of it.StarMississippi01:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is not BIO1E, because coverage of the murders existed prior to his prison escape, for over a decade[4][5][6][7][8][9]. BIO2E is not a thing. He passes NCRIMINAL 2twice because both the prison escape is extremely notable and unusual and his managing to be on the run for the decade for the murder, as remarked upon by sourcing. In depth biographical coverage is available, sustained coverage for multiple crimes for nearly 3 decades. no remaining reason for deletion. Further, a valid sizesplit since this would be undue on the other article.PARAKANYAA (talk)03:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All six of those links involve local newspaper coverage of the Rickerson murder, which was grisly but of strictly local interest in one particular region of upper New York State. It received no national coverage and received no press mentions outside of that corner of New York until the 2015 escape. There is no way his pre-escape crimes would have justified an article and indeed none was proposed by our many contributors from that region.Coretheapple (talk)00:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So? I'm not suggesting he warrants an article for the murder alone (in fact, he couldn't have, because if the prison escape hadn't happened, he would be BIO1E for that), but that since there are multiple events that he received sigcov for, it does mean that he does not qualify asWP:ONEEVENT. BIO1E does not mean each individual thing has to be treated as its own item thatitself has to be notable to overcome it. He plainly passes NCRIMINAL#2 because the prison escape was extremely notable and unusual, and there is a great depth of coverage. That an article was not made before means little. Even if he was BIO1E says "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified".PARAKANYAA (talk)03:20, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Coretheapple.BuzzWeiser196 (talk)10:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting here as arguments are divided between a Merge (with two different target articles suggested) and Keeping the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Liz^Read!Talk!20:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Re above: at the current time two editors favor keep and four editors favor a merge, counting myself as nominator andBuzzWeiser196 (see comment directly above andhis talk page comment). I do not believe any target article has been suggested other than2015 Clinton Correctional Facility escape.Coretheapple (talk)12:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus is not judged by the count of people in favor of one decision or another, but by the strength of the arguments. 4:2 is meaningless. --Hammersoft (talk)20:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. I was simply responding to factual statements made directly above.Coretheapple (talk)14:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with 2015 escape, per the primary reason for his notability.—Fortuna,imperatrix13:24, 1 October 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.