Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flaming (talk | contribs) at 05:44, 4 October 2013 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black magic (caffeine). (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 3 October 5 October >

Purge server cache

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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black magic (caffeine)

Black magic (caffeine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reference for this article does not include any reference whatsoever to "black magic", it is only a basic caffeine data sheet. Google results for "black magic caffeine" are instruction teks for how to "free base" caffeine from coffee. Not notable. flaming () 05:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I suspect the real source for the article is this video. It's a silly argument for drug legalization, an illustration of how a recreational drug can be made from material you can find around the house. Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC) SOCK[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability PianoDan (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; no sources specified that actually mention the subject. The name seems to have originated from an article/video [1], but it's not notable.--Larry (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yeah, I saw this while re-writing a related article and was going to nominate it for deletion for all the reasons outlined by the nominator. I didn't get around to it but I'm glad Flaming did. Stalwart111 02:56, 13 October 2013 (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.
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 redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2002#Wisconsin. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Greer (Wisconsin politician)

Ron Greer (Wisconsin politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Political candidate who hasn't attained notable office, or other indications of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is one of a slew of undoubtedly well-intentioned "articles" about obscure losing political candidates who fail WP:POLITICIAN and are only covered because they got on the ballot. We have established a clear precedent that if the only reason somebody appears in the press is because they are on the ballot as the candidate of a major party, the coverage is really about the election and not the candidate, and the general WP:BIO standards of substantial coverage about the subject are to be applied. Greer, like the rest, fails these (odd duck though he is). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2013 (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.
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. The consensus is that as this event has not yet taken place, notability cannot be established from the sources provided. Should there be significant coverage during/after the event, the article could be re-created PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand International

Miss Grand International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear notable Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm seeing quite a few sources that at least are covering the pageant. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A pageant in its first year, and which hasn't even been held yet. The only reliable source I can find is this which profiles a contestant, and is very minor coverage to the pint of being a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable yet, chances are it probably won't be, but who can tell? Mabalu (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2013 (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.
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resperate

Resperate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advert with cherry-picked citations from obscure publications. Orange Mike | Talk 02:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm a little worried about the journal publications, as it's very common for companies to pay for people to perform research upon the product. Until we can verify that the Resperate company didn't pay for the research, I'd kind of automatically assume that they're suspect and unusable. It doesn't mean that they can't be genuine non-paid for sources, but when you get to "new" stuff like this it's more likely that they're unusable. Most times it takes a long while to gain coverage in PR journals. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I'm worried about as well, that these are primary sources that are paid for by the company itself. I've moved the original sources to the talk page until they can be verified. At first glance there does seem to be coverage, but at this point it's just weeding through them to see which are primary and which aren't. As far as the PP sources, those I'm more listing to show that there has been some widespread coverage in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source shows that as of 2007 there were 8 studies but only one wasn't manufacturer sponsored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say Delete because the device does not appear to have widespread recognition and also because of the exaggerated nature of the claims in the article. For example, the article says The American Heart Association has recommended Resperate as a "reasonable option to support lowering BP", but the linked paper does not actually "recommend" the device; the Summary and Clinical Recommendations section about Respirate says that Device-guided breathing is reasonable to perform in clinical practice to reduce BP and that further study is needed, which IMO is a far cry from a recommendation. The FDA clearance was under a process which finds the device to be "substantially equivalent" to already approved devices, which does not suggest that this particular device is unique enough to deserve an article of its own. Is there a reasonable redirect target? All I could think of as a target was Biofeedback which is probably too general. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2013 (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.
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 redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 1998#Wisconsin. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Spottswood

Lydia Spottswood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable candidate and local politician; fails WP:POLITICIAN. Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2013 (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.
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. No prejudice towards redirection or mentions in appropriate articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Gauntlett

Daniel Gauntlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think anybody can seriously argue that this person is/was in any way notable, even in his death. The event (i.e. his demise) may be notable, but that is unproven. An Early Day Motion and a few minor soundbites exchanged between the sponsoring MP and a poverty NGO are not sufficient to make for notability, IMHO.  Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be prepared for a surprise; I'm about to seriously argue that this person, or rather his death, was notable. (as has been suggested by User:Norden1990, I think the article needs to change to Death of Daniel Gauntlett; I'll do that when the AfD has concluded to avoid confusion). With reference to Wikipedia:Notability_(people) his death and the discussion around it was "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" for the national newspaper The Guardian, the UK magazine The New Statesman, Vice (magazine) in the USA, and substantial coverage by two regional papers (as referenced in the article). As noted, an MP involved was moved to comment on the death, as well as significant comment in blogs and NGO websites. His death is of ongoing interest with LASPO legislation (see articles). So...I hope changing the article to be about the event, rather than the person, would cover your issues? PhilMacD (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If, as has been suggested above by PhilMacD, this article is renamed Death of Daniel Gauntlett, I believe it will be an extremely important document, not just for future generations, but for many people in Britain today.

The decisions made by neighbours and the police and Daniel Gauntlett himself were all affected by laws we are all governed by. Those people's choices all serve to raise serious questions about our priorities today. According to all the news reports, Daniel Gauntlett was told by the police not to break into the derelict, condemned house. He chose to obey those instructions and instead slept outside in -2°C temperature exacerbated by wind chill. As a result he died.

Furthermore, again according to the news reports, neigbours called the police and reported his presence at the house. Had they not called the police and offered him shelter, some food and a warm drink and a dry blanket instead, again, maybe he might have survived that night.

All these questions are extremely difficult to answer, but they are at the core of what British society is about in the second decade of the 21st Century. David Cameron says he believes in a "Big Society" and that "We're all in it together". If he's sincere, why was Daniel Gauntlett allowed to be left out in the freezing night to die?

This is the debate opened up by the death of Daniel Gauntlett. If we are all in it together, who killed Daniel Gauntlett? Now I'm going to surprise you. I did - because I voted Conservative. I believed David Cameron was sincere. I believed David Cameron's Big Society included people like Daniel Gauntlett. I believed "all" meant ALL, not just those with a roof over their heads.

On 2nd March 2013 Mark McGowan posted this tribute to Daniel Gauntlett <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb07UL3olGs> It has been viewed 14,570 times

On 11th May 2013, three years after David Cameron became Prime Minister, just before I faced the repossession of my home, meaning I would become homeless, I posted this version of Mark McGowan's video tribute to Daniel Gauntlett <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I54-ZPd9tV8> A few weeks later I received a very emotional message from Daniel Gauntelett's daughter, thanking me for posting the video. I was able to tell her that her father’s story helped inspire me to fight to keep my home. And I did. I was lucky.

This is just one example of how Daniel Gauntelett’s death has had a positive effect.

Daniel Gauntlett was a real human being. His passing was a tragedy. It has affected many many people, most of whom never met him. Daniel Gauntlett's death represents one of the most fundamental issues facing British people today, one which after being Prime Minister for over three years, David Cameron has not even begun to address. If we can remember people who die in foreign wars, we can surely remember one who died equally needlessly as a result of how society obeys rules, regardless of the consequences to those who, for whatever reason are not counted as part of the "Big Society". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModerateFKR (talk • contribs) 03:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The topic as given clearly non-notable, a news story that a homeless person died. However the larger story might be notable as Death of Daniel Gauntlett though I think current coverage at Anti-Squatting Law is probably enough. Creating a standalone article on this topic has a WP:NOTADVOCATE air about it reinforced by comments above. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue it either needs to be kept, or needs a big chunk of further coverage in the Legal_Aid,_Sentencing_and_Punishment_of_Offenders_Act_2012 article, but I think there's enough information to make it an article in itself, and addition of the information to the LASPO article in itself could sway that article in a WP:SOAPBOX way. In summary; the information should be somewhere, and as ModerateFKR shows, it contains important issues, but the article and its existence (I think) is WP:NPOV. PhilMacD (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Squatting in residential premises was a problem primarily (though not exclusively) in London. Once squatters got into a house it was very difficult to remove them, and by the time they were removed, the propery would often have eben damaged. Effectively, the squatters are stealing a home. Keeping a habitable house empty without a good reason is certainly wrong, but Local Authorities have powers to bring unoccupied property into use; with the ultimaate sanction of Compulsory Purchase. I heard on the radio of the case of a couple who had bought a house to renovate it and move into it; the squatters decided they wanted it; when they were evicted, the renovations had to be started again. The MP's case seems to ahve been that if the Act had not prevented Daniel squatting, he might not have died of exposure. An Early Day Motion is a sort of petition among MPs: they are rarely even debated. This case was no doubt being used by an opponent of the Act in support of his case against it, but this is a splinter off a splinter of political debate. I do not think this article should be kept unless the case starts getting regularly quoted. If kept it should be [Death of Daniel Gauntlett]]. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article was created Vice (magazine) and The Independent have quoted the case. I think we have to watch for POV overlap here; the debate over whether squatting is right or wrong shouldn't impinge on whether an article should be kept on Wikipedia.PhilMacD (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- The event is notable, not the man, and I would support a rename and a change in the direction of the article to consider the event and surrounding circumstances. There seems to be enough information to separate it from the Anti-Squatting Law article, and therefore should be distinct. Jack (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename -- Per Jackhynes. A homeless man isn't notable enough to deserve a page named after him. Instead, we are waiting for valuable expansion without undue weight. --George Ho (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the death of one homeless person is by no means notable. In large cities this probably happens on a daily basis. Otherwise we'll have an article for every car accident, suicide, etc. that gets reported in media. -Zanhe (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Any useful information is already contained within the article for Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Outside of that context, even the event he's linked to isn't particularly notable in and of itself, it's the specific legislation that's notable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2013 (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.
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 redirect to Kit houses in Michigan.  Sandstein  11:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Houses of Ann Arbor, Michigan

Kit Houses of Ann Arbor, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I appreciate the article creator's removal of a list of addresses of private homes (well, house numbers if not streets), but this is not a notable and encyclopedic topic. If it were, we would have better sources than the most local of local newspapers (see WP:LOCALFAME); the cited sources are papers distributed free to residents of Ann Arbor, they're not even the main local newspaper much less a historic source indicating scholarly interest. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right here is my issue with this user's attempt to delete the article. The sourcing is based on articles published by two noted authorities on architecture and kit homes including numerous publications in national publications as well as being published authors themselves. The fact that one of the articles appeared in "the most local of local newspapers" takes nothing away from the quality of their work or the authority which they bring to these pieces. Furthermore, their work has been cited in numerous publications. Of course, the user apparently knows nothing of this and attacks the sourcing solely on where it was published.Kithousefans (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list of Lustron houses includes both owner names and addresses as do other articles about historic homes. This simply highlights the arbitrary nature of the request to delete this page or force the removal of addresses from this page.Kithousefans (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources by authorities on this subject are included in the article. Clusters of kit homes within a small geographic area is notable and is referenced in the main Sears Catalog Homes article. As I noted in the other article, these same arguments should be applied to the article on Luston homes and similar lists of homes and locations listed on Wikipedia.Kithousefans (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources are all local and not significant publications. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Authors of the articles include a noted national authority on kit homes (Schweitzer) who's book on kit homes is frequently cited in academic works. The homes of Ann Arbor have also been referenced specifically by national experts on kit homes (Thornton).Kithousefans (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Comment I don't think the coverage in reliable secondary sources rises to the level required of an encyclopedia. I do think that there might be some other local wiki that this might be more appropriate for. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kit houses in Michigan with this draft as a base. There aren't enough sources, I think, to support articles about kit houses in individual towns. But the State of Michigan had a particularly notable role in the development of the kit house industry in the United stated during the 20s and 30s. I'd be keen to know if Deathlibrarian and Nwlaw63 would support that solution and I've started a conversation with the nominator on his talk page. Stalwart111 04:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a completely reasonable solution. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stalwart111's far better solution. I think there's enough there to establish the general notability of the topic as a whole whereas there's not enough Kit houses of ______ articles. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2013 (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.
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Pathak

Amitabh Pathak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. I notice this article was created the day his death was reported. being head of police of a state is not inherently notable. the only coverage I've found is of his death or him making statements as a senior police officer. nothing indepth about him as a person. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable but article fails WP:BIO, not notable; no controversy either.Wb10versinfo (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without major awards or medals and no media coverage beyond death - hard to make case for notability. There's lots of announcement coverage of death, but he had only been in position as Chief for 6 months so little time to establish notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As a police officer, he was simply doing what all such officers are expected to do. His last position lasted only six months, as it seems he had health issues, so he didn't really have the time to do anything remarkable. Looks like an article created and expanded by well-wishers, especially as it was created on the very day he died abroad when most people would not have known about it. The infobox even gives the names of his wife and children, not mentioned in the three sources cited, which were added later by another contributor. Why is that supposed to be relevant! In fact, although there are three sources, one source is a duplicate press agency report about his death, so all we have is a routine news item about his appointment in February 2013, and the press agency item reporting his death, as he died abroad. Most tourists dying abroad get that sort of coverage, no matter who they are, and the diplomatic mission of their country (mentioned in the press agency report) attends to all related matters. Nothing to do with notability - Zananiri (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_October_4&oldid=575687787"