Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Park (witness)


 * 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 (independent notability not established). Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Allan Park (witness)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - not notable, even if he were it's in connection with a single event. Contested prod. Otto4711 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- I found this page organically, found the information on it useful, and would not have found it without the page. I'm sure plenty of other people could say the same, and if that isn't pertinent to "Wikipedia's guidelines", then perhaps the guidelines need revision. This page should stay. -dave, october 21 (wikipedia novice obviously)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranatoro (talk • contribs) 08:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. His testimony is clearly notable, as it received abundant coverage. The article could be moved to Testimony of Allan Park. The rationale for a separate article for Allan Park's testimony is that O. J. Simpson murder case is already quite long at 35 kilobytes. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read BLP. 35 KB is not unduly long for an article and even if this were merged in its entirety it would add less than 5K to the article. Allan Park is not notable under our policies. Otto4711 (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Move per Eastmain. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * merge per logic given by Otto. Is preferable than moving since the article on the trial is not as of yet that long. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - At present, the article is incorrectly named. It is not about Park, but his testimony. There is no eveidence that his testimony was independently notable beyond the trial, so the info belongs in that article. However, the only referenced info in this article is that Park moved, which is immaterial to the trial. Nothing to merge. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * delete not independantly notable, and nothing to merge. If sources are found, then create a section on the trial's page (35kB is not too long).Yobmod (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.