Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Leat


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nigel Leat

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not the news, and this individual is only notable through one event. ZZArch talk to me 08:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be in Wikipedia because highlighting the failure to deal with Leat may help prevent similar trouble in future. This would probably be better as part of a longer article but I'm not sure which article fits.

Can anyone suggest an article where this can go? I'm not lengthening it because I agree it's better as a section of a longer article and I want to keep it the right length for such a section. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Major peadophile story. lousy article that can be fixed though.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 14:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP. Reprehensible though his conduct was, I don't think it qualifies as a 'well-documented historic event', nor is he a 'renowned national or international figure'. We generally shouldn't have articles on criminals notable for a single crime, except where they've become notable themselves (e.g. Ronnie Biggs). Robofish (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: BLP1E and PERP are quite clear: "[T]he criminal ... in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: (for perpetrators) 1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; (2) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual — or has otherwise been considered noteworthy — such that it is a well-documented historic event." (emphasis in the original) Neither is, of course, the case.  Far from being a "major" abuse case, as asserted above, it's one of a torrent of such cases over the last decade or so.  Ravenswing  10:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per all the foregoing deletion reasons. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I started the article because Nigel Leat was allowed to continue with his reprehensible actions for ten years without the authorities doing anything though many people were concerned. Is that notable? Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: Color me confused; you've been editing on Wikipedia for nearly four years and a couple thousand edits worth. Of course you know that the pertinent guidelines of notability have nothing to do with how long one might have been a pedophile, whether the authorities performed due diligence in the matter or whether the story of a particular person makes for an adequate cautionary tale.  Ravenswing  10:32, 18 February 2012 (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.