Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romuald Rat

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romuald Rat

This article, about a British paparazzo who was one of the first photographers on the scene of the death of Princess Diana fails WP:BLP1E, namely "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This should be a straightforward decision to delete, particularly given the scanty information about Mr. Rat, and the rather accusatory tone of the article. No objections to a redirect to Death of Princess Diana being created. For clarity, I should note I originally speedily deleted the article under WP:CSD#G10 but following a protest from User:JoshuaZ have restored it and brought it to AFD for consideration. fish&karate 11:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Any relevant info can be inserted into the appropriate Princess Diana article(s) if it's not already there.--Boffob (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that's a merge not a delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Mr. Rat deserves his footnote in history. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Footnote, not article. It's all covered by WP:BLP1E.--Boffob (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep no objection to Merging to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. I've been looking for more sources on the individual but none of them seem to be extensive enough to justify a separate article. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete A wholly negative article masquerading as a BLP, just repeats libellous allegations a perfect example of a lawsuit waiting to happen. RMHED (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent notability and full of hearsay and innuendo. All the article seems to do is to repeat allegations made by Mr. Lennox and then quote Mr. Lennox's retractions. Not a good example for wikipedia at all. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 00:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:BLP1E. The article is about person's role in a single incident. Can be easily incorporated into aforementioned article. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 02:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that's a merge not a delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for the article to be deleted. The information may be used in Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. And that's not merge. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 12:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're keeping the information then that's a merge and the contributions of the editors should be acknowledged per WP:5 and WP:GFDL. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden is correct; if information from this article were to be incoprorated into another, then the history of this article has to remain visible to satisfy attribution as per the GFDL. fish&karate 15:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BLP1E. This person, as per Wikipedia policy, does not deserve an article based on this one event, and no other aspects of this person's life seem to make him notable. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the first kid born in the arctic or antarctic or wherever get a million votes keep even though he's utterly non-notable but for the accident of his birth and best included elsewhere and redirected , but this paparazzo who is part of the biggest paparazzi even in history doesn't get a spot. Just wondering. And as far as being a personal attack, it seems to me the solution would be to fix the article not to delete it. Isn't this like the pinnacle of paparazzidom? What more can a paparazzo do to get in Wikipedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After removing all the ~~innuendo~~allegations and personal attack stuff, this is what is left in the entire article: Romuald Rat is a British Paparazzo who was one of the first on the scene when ex-Princess Diana died in Paris.[1]. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 15:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conent documenting controversy sourced to reliable media is not tantamount to innuendo. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. This person's part in the event is notable as there are numerous sources about this. But the main article does not currently mention him and so the content should be merged there. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2008 (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.