Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dante Arthurs (2nd nomination)


 * 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 - The 8 day AfD is not a problem as it was likely left there by passing admins due to a lack of conviction in the debate after 5 days. There is a consensus to keep now.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Dante Arthurs
Non-notable persona, should be merged with James Bulger I elliot 11:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete Article was created due to a (now disproven) rumour. Actual subject of article has no inherent notability, other than his association to the rumour. Hence this should be merged with the James Bulger article. Arthurs does not deserve his own article.I elliot 11:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Note to closing admin - Please note that most votes here (including mine) are keep, but were delivered after the closing time. Please consider the late surge in support. - Richardcavell 01:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge the rumor stuff into the Bulger article, Bulger's killers don't even have their own article.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Get rid of this article - if published in Australia, its probably illegal as its prejudicial; its too much information about a disproven rumour. This guy, guilty or not, is a "no body".  Domestic, non-notorious, unconvicted persons merely accused of murder have no place on wiki. There is no point having a wiki article which has only one justiication: a widely circulated disproven email. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.207.165 (talk • contribs).
 * Strong Keep If the basis of your argument to remove the article is non notable persona and Arthurs actions have "no inherent notability(??!!), it is countered by the fact that he is an Australian prisoner on remand and has received enough media attention to warrant the Australian government at both state and federal level and the British ambassador defending against a "rumour" that originated BEFORE the alleged severely brutal, inhumane murder of Sofia Rodriguez.Elpocoloco 03:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to remind any administrators making judgements on this article that it is Wikipedia policy to ignore the comments of users whose only contributions are to the article to be deleted.I elliot 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Like yourself, elliot? Joined 30 June, 2006? Coincidence? Elpocoloco 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I joined on the 17th of April and I have contributed to articles other than this one.I elliot 09:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Think carefully. Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources, on top of the original nomination. Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete. Are you going to continue advocating deletion, elliot? What reason will you put forward third time around? Elpocoloco 09:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. First of all, let's keep the discussion about the subject, not about the various editors involved.  He is a suspect in a notorious crime, which is borderline notable; the Thompson rumors, even though false, were widely circulated and push this over the line to notability IMO.  Readers interested in the case should be able to come to Wikipedia to find the truth as best we can verify it. NawlinWiki 12:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per NawlinWiki. And chaps, less of this "Yah Boo" stuff please, Let's keep it civil, eh? Tonywalton | Talk 12:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep —  Suspect in case that has been widely covered both because of the age of the vic and because it has become a bit of a political football. Also, a rumor/hoax can be covered here if identiified as such, regardless of the original reason for the creation of the article. JChap2007 17:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. There are reliable sources cited in the article such as the Age, Guardian and West Australian newspapers. The crime received national coverage on the day that it occurred. It shouldn't be merged with James Bulger given that the connection is that he was falsely believed to be one of his killers.Capitalistroadster 03:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 03:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, his fame is transient and is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article which will be around indefinitely. -- Kjkolb 07:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per Nawlinkwiki. (JROBBO 13:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Keep - I claim to be the principal author of the article. I also think that he is an inherently noteworthy person. Everything that I said about him is absolutely true. You can verify it yourself. - Richardcavell 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I claim to be the principal author of the article. I also think that he is an inherently noteworthy person. Everything that I said about him is absolutely true. You can verify it yourself. - Richardcavell 01:12, 22 August 2006 (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.