Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Croft


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Croft

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

Contested prod. If notable at all then purely passing notability, a one event. Unusual? Quite TalkQu  23:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, faint whiff of hate crime. Franciscrot (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. not notable, sound very POV. --Empire3131 (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability entirely transient. Deb (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't we like userfy? Transwiki to Uncy? Meta as cautionary tale? If not, sadly delete I mean, this is hilarious, if not notable. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Note that that notability does not expire and WP:ONEEVENT requires a separate article on the event to be applicable.  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which means the event was far too minor to be worth an article--which given that's all the subject is known for, doesn't exactly help your case.


 * Delete. A Sun story disguised as an article. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Croft=Cruft.  Also, this article might be a BLP issue. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. To Dumbledore. 85.92.130.47 (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete on humanitarian grounds as well as maintaining the standards of the place. Probably created as an act of attempted vandalism. The creator is probably laughing his socks off at this serious discussion resulting from his actions. (Deliberate wording there?) Peridon (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dumbledore. There's at least 2 reliable sources and while giving the whole incident an article of its own, putting it in perspective, would explain more about the effects of JKR's announcement about Dumbledore. - Mgm|(talk) 19:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Question?: People have voted delete here to avoid harm to the subject of the article but is it really all that bad to add a sentence or two in the Dumbledore article about this incident and point the subjects name to Dumbledore? Consider that the subject already willingly went to the press on his own I can't see it all that bad for the subject. - RhadamanthNemesis —Preceding unsigned comment added by RhadamanthNemesis (talk • contribs) 02:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Deleteas BLP violation. The true essence of ONEEVENT--repeating trivialities that do not reflect well on anyone from the worst levels of the UK tabloid press. As a general rule, any article where the most reliable of the sources is the Sun is probable unsuitable for Wikipedia. In any case, i removed a sentence with the names of his children, as an application of Do no harm. I am not happy with the way we often employ our BLP policy, which I think we often misuse to remove information about matters that are of significance, but we do need BLP, and this article show why. I invite some other admin to concur with me and speedy delete. I would think exactly the same of this content if added to any other WP article. DGG (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the duty of The Sun to avoid BLP violations. It's their problem, not Wikipedia's. Wikipedia articles should only be proxying their content, in a sense, per the WP:NOR policy.--ProvidentialPrudence (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Amazing how an AfD for such a minor article written by a blocked user is so inspirational that it encourages two new editors register accounts and post here first. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  18:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. John254 22:31, 29 December 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.