Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottown Fireworks Fire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scottown Fireworks Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
WP:NOTNEWS. It looks like a news ticker to me, with a little blurb on the perpetrator. Tavix (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've also felt for a while this article also didn't feel good in a BLP sense.--Scott Mac (Doc) 04:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This looks like a ONEEVENT, rolled over into a BLP invasion of privacy. I note the guy has brain damage, is institutionalized, and never convicted of any crime. There's no lasting coverage, and unlikely to be enough to really expand this topic beyond it's stubbish form. That stub would be ridiculously short without the BLP, leaving an odd ONEEVENT situation. ThuranX (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The guy was never convicted and event also had no lasting effects in the sense of rule or law changes. Fails all the notability criteria for news events and half the article is dedicated to negative information on said non-convicted person which means it indeed crosses BLP lines. - Mgm|(talk) 15:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:ONEEVENT. Schuym1 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't appear to have had any major coverage, and I'm pretty sure some of the content falls under our BLP policy. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:02, 12 January 2009 (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.