Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Armstrong (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 no consensus. Reagrdless, a "delete and merge" was never going to happen, because of our GFDL obligations. Please use editorial consensus from the talk page for future merge attempts. However, there is no consensus to delete the article, nor to merge it, from this discussion.  Daniel  04:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Eugene Armstrong
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete and merge. Not sufficiently notable per WP:BIO. Google searches only return hits regarding his beheading videos, but no articles other than blogs that make him a primary subject of any entry. Strothra 19:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of news coverage as far as I can see. CNN covered it.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, as CNN would have at the time, briefly. However, that does not sufficiently establish this individual's notability. Note that the article is about the person, not the event. --Strothra 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, victim of a widely-publicized crime, with plenty of coverage by reliable sources. Realkyhick 20:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, The man was the victim of a very well known and well covered crime, and as such has gained notability. Who he was and what he did was relevant to why he was killed, and this page serves that end well. 24.11.202.83 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Again, the article is not about the individual so much as it is about the incident. --Strothra 20:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per previous outcomes and per arguments to keep listed here --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  21:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is not temporary Unless there has been coverage since the incident, he is not notable. A victim of a crime is not automatically, even if the crime is well-covered in the media. Sadly for his family, this guy is forgottne. MarkBul 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hasn't been much coverage of Jack the Ripper's victim's recently either, but they still have articles. (I know, I know, irrelevent point and WP:OTHERSTUFF). He might not have been a very notable person, but the manner of his death and its relevence to the insurgency and tactics being used in Iraq at the time are, so keep or, if you must, merge with Foreign hostages in Iraq. Tx17777 22:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. There certainly has been recent coverage of Jack the Ripper's victims- there have been plenty of books about Jack, his murders and his victims, not to mention films, dramas, documentaries etc. I can see no lasting significance in this case, heartless as it sounds, and we are not a news service. In any case, even if we were to have an article (if there was lasting significance) it should be about his death, as it is not he who is notable, but the event. J Milburn 23:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I fail to see any historic notability for this either.  Unfortunately, there are lots of people being killed in conflicts around the world, but that doesnt mean we should have articles for all of them. Corpx 04:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge to foreign hostages in Iraq. Pseudobiography on an otherwise non-notable subject. WP:NOT a memorial. Chris Cunningham 08:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It does fail WP:COATRACK, but that's not a policy or guideline. I think Wikipedia should definitely have some coverage of Armstrong. Perhaps have a list of foreigners killed in Iraq? List of people whose beheadings have been filmed? I don't know.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the purpose of foreign hostages in Iraq, per above. Changed my comment.Chris Cunningham 09:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to foreign hostages in Iraq. Collectively notable. Not sufficiently notable on his own. Wikipedia is not a memorial, but someone sometime might be interested enough in Mr. Armstrong and the others to come here looking. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd support a merge or a keep, but certainly not an outright deletion of any mention of Armstrong.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 16:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * CommetI see there was a number of Merges on the prior afd. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  20:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources show notability "Notability is not temporary" means that once he has been notable, as he has, he remains notable. DGG (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Once you have been notable you remain so. He was notable when the incident occured. --Djsasso 17:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment He was not notable. The execution was. Chris Cunningham 07:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment And the fact that his execution was notable makes him notable as a victim of that execution. --Djsasso 15:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The literal embodiment of WP:COATRACK, which I wish were official policy. Chris Cunningham 15:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is coatrack at all. He was notable for being killed. Coatrack would be if we were trying to say the only reason he was notable was because he was killed by a famous gun or killed in a famous place. --Djsasso 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he wasn't notable for being killed. His death was notable. This is not a difficult distinction to make. It's why wikipedia doesn't have ten thousand articles on individual lottery winners, even though winning the lottery is highly notable. Chris Cunningham 17:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added 2 verifable sources. Only 25 Google hits now remain. Hopoefully, more will be added. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  18:23, 5 September 2007 (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.