Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braidwood Inquiry


 * 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 redirect to Robert Dziekański Taser incident. The discussion isn't amazing and I've debated closing as No Consensus but anyway after being up for 3 weeks I'm closing as Redirect. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 23:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Braidwood Inquiry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Content fork. I'm mixed on whether this should be a merge, redirect, or deletion, however. Despite ostensibly being about the entirety of the Braidwood Inquiry, the "first stage" information consists of one paragraph. The article is really the "second stage" inquiry, which is covered more completely in its own article (Robert Dziekański Taser incident), mainly because things occurred after the main author here stopped contributing to the article. Therefore, aside from one paragraph, this is an inferior version of another article, and there doesn't appear to be anything else to say about Stage 1, as a safety inquiry isn't as newsworthy as an actual death. MSJapan (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Yeah, I'm not seeing much of a reason why the inquiry would need a standalone article as a separate topic from the incident it was investigating — it's an unnecessary content fork. The title is a plausible enough search term that it should remain in place as a redirect to Robert Dziekański Taser incident, though. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 03:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as this is still seeming best known for that, nothing to particularly suggest anything better as its own article. SwisterTwister   talk  07:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect, Content fork.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:58, 5 June 2016 (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.