Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Rodrigues (9/11 officer)


 * 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. There are three "Keep" votes here. Two assert that Rogrigues is notable because he was portrayed in a film. However, this argument is not supported by policy so I have discounted these votes. The remaining !vote asserts that the sources indicate notability, but there is no agreement from other participants for this point of view. On the other hand, I find User:TJRC's assertion that this is a WP:ONEEVENT case persuasive. Finally, there is an argument for a Merge, and if anyone wants to do it I'm happy to draft-ify this article to facilitate this happening. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Antonio Rodrigues (9/11 officer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable police officer who died on 9/11. Only claim to significance is that he was portrayed in a side role in the movie World Trade Center (film). Fails WP:BIO. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 16:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 16:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 16:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources are now cited in the article. Encyclopedic, verifiable and notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. I don't understand "Wikipedia is not a memorial" because nothing in the article is written like a "memorial".  Bielazulov   (Debate)  01:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Where are these sources? The only one that deals with him at length is the NYT article. WP:ONEEVENT also applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. People are not notable for being killed or for being portrayed in films. They are notable for being notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete; this looks like WP:ONEEVENT to me. The primary claim to notability beyond that one event is that he was depicted in a film about that one event.  One note, if the article is retained there are potential DAB issues with another barely- or non-notable individual at António Rodrigues. TJRC (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - He is depicted in a film. He was no matter what users here claims anyhow a part of an event which changed the world... I guess that is why he was part of this film. Basic WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited from either the film or the event. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs)  19:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to article on the film. He is not notable enough to justify a stand-alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep His depiction in the Oliver Stone film obviously shows real-world notability regardless of Wikipedia's quirky INHERIT essay - which was written without consensus and is a blunt instrument in cases like this. Plus the other sources. -- Green  C  03:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you really saying that all historical characters depicted in films should have articles, no matter how minor their role in history (or the film) may have been? If you're not saying that, why exactly is Rodrigues a special case? If he was the central character in the film, then I might agree with you, but he isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2014 (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.