Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Bettison


 * 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 snow keep. Police chiefs of major cities or their equivalents are inherently notable. Blueboy96 13:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Norman Bettison

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

Non-notable individual, not enough independent sources to verify information and notability. -Nard 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article already has multiple references from credible sources which are independent of the subject (eg. The Times, BBC News, Liverpool Echo, Telegraph Newspaper).  Additionally, as the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (one of the biggest police forces in the United Kingdom), Bettison is one of the most senior British police officers serving today.  On top of that, his role in the aftermath of the Hillsborough Disaster makes him even more noteworthy.  Finally, if there are concerns about the veracity of particular statements in the article then the way to proceed is with the use of   templates. Greenshed (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep well within scope of Notability (people) (plenty of third-party newspaper accounts, "significant recognized awards or honors" and "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"). Plus British Chief Constables are generally viewed as notable. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the exact opposite of the nom. jon ( blab ) 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the subject's notability and the independent sources cited which confirm it. — Athaenara  ✉  02:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the subject's notability. Why is this here? "not enough independent sources"? Of a Police Chief Constable of a UK geographical police force? is this a joke? this AFD should be closed. --Fredrick day (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as Keep Can this silly nom be related to Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard and this news story? Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot agree with the nom. Considering the article has around 16 references, it is notable. -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  03:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete --  &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk *  07:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC) attack on subject article removed as per BLP policy. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Multiple coverage from independent reliable sources. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - very notable, meets notability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability and biography of living persons policies and guidelines. The conflict of interest is the only problem with this article. EJF (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2008 (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.