Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh McDermott (police officer)


 * 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. Stating that you're planning to look for sources after the AfD closes isn't useful. More useful would have been to look for sources now and list them here at the AfD so people could evaluate them. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Striking my comment; I mis-read User:Hugsyrup's argument and reacted to something he didn't say. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hugh McDermott (police officer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of meeting WP:Notability guidelines. Small town local police office that was involved in shoot out with a gangster. No significant coverage about him, only mentions in articles about the gangster. noq (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep - I contested the prod and added some additional info and slightly better sources. The problem is that the sources primarily fall into two types: high-quality reliable sources such as published books, but that cover McDermott only in passing, and only in the context of Pretty Boy Floyd. Or lower-quality sources (blogs, the online historical society, etc.) that cover him in considerably more depth and expand to his whole career. I'm just about inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as worth keeping, and I'm planning to spend the time that this AFD is open trying to find better sources and improve the article, but I can certainly understand why it was nominated and wouldn't be particularly surprised by a delete result. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Hugsyrup. If sources can't be found, then mentioning some of the sourceable biographical details in the article on the gangster seems like it would be appropriate. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not sure what either of the previous two editors are seeing as notable. The story I see is small town police officer is roped in to help FBI search for suspect. I don;t see anything in that that is inherently notable.  All the article says is he helped search for Floyd, he was not mentioned as being involved in the shoot out itself. The main sources would appear to be passing mentions and not significant coverage.  What makes him stand out from all the other police officers involved in the seatch? noq (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: At its best BLP1E, nothing besides the event and his resume. Viztor (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination & Viztor. Geoffroi (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the nom and Viztor. Under WP:NOTINHERITED, notability is not inherited. The criminal he helped take down was notable, not this guy. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment this is not a WP:BLP1E, because it is not a BLP. The subject has been dead for 66 years. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:07, 25 June 2019 (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.