Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Poisson
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. MBisanz talk 09:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaron Poisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article about a person who is known for a single event, focuses only on the negative aspects of that person (BLP violation). The crime, while shocking had no remarkable effects on law or the world in general. Mgm|(talk) 12:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. JohnCD (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. On looking at the article's author's talk page I see he wasn't notified of this AfD. I'll correct that now, with a gentle piscine caress for the nominator.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You would whack a fish with a fish?--MrFishGo Fish 17:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per both of the above. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 17:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Err on the side of Keep Ventifax (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really an argument. Care to elaborate your opinion? -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly, I'm extremely inclusionist on historical persons. I tend to favor keeping an article on any person that a reader might want to look up unless they are completely non-noteworthy. Frankly, it's more trouble to have these votes over & over as the articles keep respawning than just to leave them alone. And this person excited a small controversy on the net, & this page most likely will respawn. Ventifax (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Historical person? This incident happened a few days ago. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly, I'm extremely inclusionist on historical persons. I tend to favor keeping an article on any person that a reader might want to look up unless they are completely non-noteworthy. Frankly, it's more trouble to have these votes over & over as the articles keep respawning than just to leave them alone. And this person excited a small controversy on the net, & this page most likely will respawn. Ventifax (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it's a news article -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 9 March 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.