Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Abram


 * 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 George Harrison. BLP1E quite clearly, even the keep side acknowledges this Spartaz Humbug! 03:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Abram

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. I have serious doubts about this person's notability - it seems he is only 'notable' for one event, his attempted murder of a celebrity, which doesn't seem to have received any substantial coverage by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore I suggest that this article is deleted, with any relevant infornation merged into the George Harrison article. GiantSnowman 12:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I disagree; this person is notable. I respect the opinion of the editor above, but allow me to address the two points they made: 1) It is true this person is notable for only one event. Any assassin would be notable for only one event. I believe that covers this point. 2) I am surprised to read the editor state this one event "doesn't seem to have received any substantial coverage by any stretch of the imagination." This statement is inaccurate, as practically all important news organizations worldwide covered the event when it happened. (I remember reading through several of them at the time I enhanced this article a few years ago. Perhaps we should add more of those sources to the article in that case, as I assume many are still readily available. This article absolutely could be better sourced.) A few sentences from this article are already in the George Harrison article, I added them myself at the time; this article expands on the details which are not available elsewhere on Wikipedia. Generally speaking, I am sorry to see an editor wishing to tear down rather than build up this piece of Wikipedia. There are other articles that are better candidates for deletion.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  18:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are aware of Wikipedia guidelines on notability, then you will be aware that being notable for one event alone (as you have admitted) isn't enough. And the person didn't receive coverage - the event in question did. I have no intention of "tear[ing] down" Wikipedia - the strength of the project lies in the fact that anything of note is allowed an article, and anything not of note isn't. I believe that the content about Michael Abram on the George Harrison article can be exapanded upon; but it does not need a seperate article. GiantSnowman 19:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete content and redirect – Beyond his date and place of birth (and a glib, unsourced nickname), the article is simply about the attack on George Harrison (and in fairly excessive detail I might add). The only salient (albeit unsourced) info regarding Abram is about his history of mental illness and his mother's comments, which could simply be moved to the Harrison article. There is nothing else of merit here that isn't already covered by the Harrison article and the namespace should simply be redirected to George Harrison. DKqwerty (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this article on The Beatles/Popular Pages. Over one hundred views a day; not bad. The article's detail is useful. The unsourced reference should be fixed. Nothing further can be added to the George Harrison article on this topic, trust me, consensus was reached. —Prhartcom   (talk)  04:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article's detail is only about the stabbing; there's almost no actual details about the supposed subject, Abram himself. How many people view something is immaterial to its appropriateness. Notwithstanding that most people only view it because there's a link to it in the Harrison article; there's no indication of how long they stay, especially once they see that it's nothing more than a recounting of the stabbing. The only three non-project pages that link to the article (besides Harrison's) are Rainhill, Scott Clinic, and Abram (name)—all of which link to the article solely within the context of the stabbing. And if being tangentially relevant to a celebrity is all it takes to get an article, then why doesn't Gilbert Lederman or Ariel Lederman have an article on similar grounds? Keep in mind, this is supposed to be a biographical article, not an account of one evening in the man's life and minor details of the subsequent fallout. If there's nothing more substantial regarding his life outside the context of the stabbing and he remains low-profile, then there's no reason to keep it per WP:BLP1E. DKqwerty (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I respectfully acknowledge that all points raised were addressed very well. —Prhartcom   (talk)  17:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to George Harrison. Most of the details that matter are already there, and the option is open to merge in any other details should that be considered appropriate. Unlike the John Lennon murder, which has attracted endless attention in the last thirty years, the entry in the Geroge Harrison article seem to cover all there is to say about the stabbing. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, no more discussion on merging details of this article into the Knife Attack section of the George Harrison article. Check the archives of the talk page of that article back when I got concensus to add that new section to the article. A discussion almost as long as the GH article itself took place to craft individual words of the sentences of the Knife Attack section into the state it is now. If we delete the Michael Abram article, we delete every word of it from Wikipedia entirely.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that consensus can't change? As for telling us what we can and cannot discuss, I must strongly oppose - this is the perfect forum for discussing every possible option about an article, and if the community decides to merge, then we shall merge. GiantSnowman 20:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does that make any difference? From what I saw on the talk page, you got consensus to add a new section into the George Harrison article. You did not ask for or get consensus to start a new article on the subject. There are various good reasons to split off a topic on a Wikipedia page into a new page in its own right, but avoiding the comments of other Wikipedia editors isn't one of them. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors, I do not mean to ignite a fire here. I realize you will delete the article now; you have convinced me, as I acknowledged to DKqwerty above. Moving on, I am suggesting you do not consider going to the George Harrison article and adding details deleted from the deleted article into the George Harrison article. The GH article has all the relevant detail on the knife attack it needs.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  22:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are indeed convinced that the article should be deleted, perhaps you should also amend your "keep" vote above so as not to confuse people about your position, as well as to more easily tally the opinions. DKqwerty (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:ONEEVENT. WereWolf (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per notable event.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Notable event' does not make 'notable person'. GiantSnowman 14:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect to George Harrison, per WP:BLP1E. That article contains all the information on the attack that is needed; there's no need for a separate article on the perpetrator, who isn't notable aside from this attack. (WP:PERP notes that perpetrators of attacks on very famous people may be notable solely for that reason, but that doesn't mean they automatically become so.) Robofish (talk) 02:26, 29 December 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.