Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Pogan


 * 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   keep. Nja 247 09:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Pogan

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

Wikipedia is not a news source--this individual is only notable for one current event in NYC, already covered at Conflicts involving Critical Mass, which is what the Patrick Pogan article actually describes; any relevant content should simply be merged from the latter to the former. e v i l d e a t h m a t h 16:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep why not simply merge the article instead of having all the unnecessary drama of an AfD? Well referenced article, meets notability. Ikip (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to what you're suggesting merging. If you're suggesting that the content of the Pogan article be merged onto Conflicts involving Critical Mass (which I'd supoport), I don't think that there remains any need for a separate article for Pogan, as there's nothing here that's unrelated to the Critical Mass incident, so I'm curious as to why Patrick Pogan should be retained as separate article. e v i l d e a t h m a t h  16:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposed merges is that way. Please read WP:BEFORE in future prior to starting a deletion debate. Skomorokh  17:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete merger would be fine but then the info needs to be checked for POV. Although I agree that merger should have been brought up before deletion it is really easy to have a knee jerk reaction when articles are created that clearly violate WP:BLP1E and do not even come close to meeting notability standards. Also, Pogan already recieves mention in the article devoted to conflicts during critical mass so it would be less of mergin and more of adding a few lines to that section.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to check in here and see if I could get you to flesh out your POV concerns. I tried to keep it neutral as best I could and ensure that there weren't undue weight issues, but it sounds like I didn't quite hit the mark. If you're willing to elaborate, I'd like to take a look and see what I can do to improve the article. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: WP:BLP1E allows for biographical entries when an individual has a substantial role in such an event. That is clearly the case here. Merger might be appropriate, but that's a different discussion. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in Talk:Critical Mass and ‎Talk:Conflicts involving Critical Mass Ikip (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja 247 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge and redirect. Well sourced, ongoing news coverage, so doesn't fall foul of BLP1E. Seems to be enough to justify its own article, but don't feel strongly against a merge. Quantpole (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge; upon closer examination, I believe I jumped the proverbial firearm by listed this for AFD; content is well sourced, reasonably balanced, and the topic is notable. e v i l d e a t h m a t h  20:49, 30 April 2009 (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.