Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Dent


 * 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 keep, with suggestion to merge to Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. - Nabla (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dent

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. This person appears to be no more notable than children who are notable for being murdered. Grahame (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. I think this falls under WP:BIO1E. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 10:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I think it would be more appropriate to mention him in the main article Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 or even under euthanasia if warranted. BananaFiend (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. I do think a mention of him is warranted. It's written poorly now, yeah, but that can be fixed when merging (which I'd be happy to do). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - A classic case of WP:BIO1E. Perhaps a redirect to the Act may be appropriate. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dent was not merely notable as part of the piece of legislation; he was the public face of the euthanasia legalisation. I saw the name in the new articles list and instantly recognised it, more than ten years after it happened. He deserves an article of his own, and considering the press coverage at the time, it should be plenty easy to write up a good one. Rebecca (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Rebecca. I recognised the name too, but then I was living in Darwin at the time. I can therefore support the view that there will be plenty of press reports. --Bduke (talk) 07:58, 28 March 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.