Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Smith (fireman)


 * 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 to delete. Three votes to keep (one weak), one delete, one merge, one move (the move and merge amount to the same thing). A consensus that this information should somehow appear on the encyclopedia, but disagreement as to the format, adds up to no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 05:54, 27 January 2009‎ (UTC)

Frank Smith (fireman)

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

I declined the speedy deletion of this article, as his significance is at least asserted. However, he only seems to be significant for one event, the last regular service steam engine run in the UK. Per WP:BLP1E, if he's not notable for anything else, his information should be included in the article concerning that steam engine run. If there isn't one, then this article should be deleted. Aervanath (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as very well argued above. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - associated to a single event with no other notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into the event is okay for me. -- Whpq (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. That one event suggests that this man was the last man employed to do what he did in the UK.  That seems to me to establish historical interest in him. JulesH (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Last UK steam engine run (or something similar) - I agree with JulesH, but we should cover the event, not the person.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will move and alter the entry to cover the event, rather than the person as suggested above if you wish to delete it. Thank you for your comments. He was the last person to be utilised as a fireman in the UK in this way which may be classed as historical significance, but as you say unless notable for more than one reason this may not be appropriate for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yippykiaye (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep In some cases, a single event can be sufficient to be notable. Being the last person to be employed in a particular occupation is, in my opinion, such an event. If the general consensus doesn't agree with me, I believe the article should be userfied since the author is clearly interested in rewriting it to discuss the event rather than the person. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep In many cases, a single event can be notable--if it's for something that's actually significant, or an historic accomplishment. The question is whether this is in that class, or rather in the class of people who happen to be involved in an accident, or win a lottery.  Frankly, I'm not sure. But in this case, the event is notable, and the clearest way to have an article on it is by having one on the person--there's no good way of evading the issue,  like our customary "Murder of X."


 * 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.