Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Brooks Faulkner


 * 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 location of Osama bin Laden. Shi meru  06:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Gary Brooks Faulkner

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Only notable for one event so fails WP:N/CA, and WP:BLP1E. Should be renamed because the perpetrator does not meet the criteria for an individual article according to Notability (criminal acts). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A single news item isn't enough to establish notability. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep According to WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Since this person is not low-profile, this article should not be a candidate for deletion. Considering this person is featured on every news channel and news outlet, it seems safe to say he is no longer low-profile. Samorat (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Firstly this is not a criminal act he has not been charged with anything. The act he committed is beyond notable. Media and forums had stated that this is amoung the most interesting and unique events. A large cult following has also developed because of his actions. Please see WP:OSTRICH, the article is well source from multiple reliable sources. There is no doubt that this will receive further coverage in the future. Valoem  talk  16:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep--Why would you remove it? Is the claim false? Just from the other responses I take it that this is a well known fact. There is no hate speech here. So why would anyone want to remove a fact? If someone thinks it is insufficiently important then that person should not read it. Otherwise keep your censorship to yourself.

Redirect to location of Osama bin Laden since Faulkner's done nothing else to be notable. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Really can't see how this passes WP:BLP1E. Sure, he's been on a lot of news lately, but that's because this all happened less than a week ago. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- meets the requirements for notability. Substantial third party coverage.Greg Bard 05:21, 23 June 2010 (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.