Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Avenir


 * 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris Avenir

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

Subject is not notable and the article falls under WP:ONEVENT --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 22:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's set up a FaceBook group to get this deleted The JPS talk to me  22:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would violate WP:CANVASS. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he was kidding. The person in the article set up a Facebook group to engage in academic misconduct. MuZemike (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I have removed the canvass warning as I think it is rather unnecessary. ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 03:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable event, made worldwide news. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For a very short period of time, yes. And I agree that the event should be mentioned somewhere- probably in Ryerson University. However, the article isn't about the case, it's about one person involved in the case, who really isn't notable to warrant an article for himself. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 23:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete his only claim to notability is one event. If the event itself was notable there should be an article about it, but not the person. ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 01:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - this is a tricky one. It made a lot of news in Canada and around Toronto, and continued to be in the press for quite some time. However if I were to look back on it in a years time it would be completely non-notable. Canterbury Tail   talk  02:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable enough for an article of his own. At most, his situation might be deserving of a sentence or two on the Ryerson University article.  PK  T  02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Canterbury Tail  is right - this is not "of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." JohnCD (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Current news does not automatically equal notability. If there ends up being a major, lasting long-term fallout from this on Facebook or on university academic policies in general, then certainly this incident would merit an article (but even then, it would be an article about the incident, not the person). However, right now it doesn't. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. DigitalC (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   —Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BIO1E. There is no further coverage of the person beyond the incident. Double Blue  (Talk) 01:03, 3 September 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.