Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raoul Thomas Moat


 * 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 Northumbria shootings. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Raoul Thomas Moat

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Seems to be clear WP:BLP1E. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 19:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC) he 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. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. wait and see whether it turns big or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.47.241 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:PERP as well as only being known for one event. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENT, and WP:PERP. Location (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple events, multiple days of coverage in major secondary sources = "persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role". Colonel Warden (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per Colonel Warden, is recieving significant national coverage, as as per WP:N/CA and "Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act". This is lead headline in pretty much every UK national newspaper and tv news outlet for two days.  At the very least, deletion should be delayed as per WP:EVENT - "Articles about breaking news events —particularly biographies of participants— are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge" OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename and change emphasis to event. BLP1E states "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." I believe that the event itself has received enough high profile coverage to not fall foul of WP:NOTNEWS. Given the nature of the crimes, this is highly unlikely to be a flash in the pan news story. Quantpole (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:PERP as well as only being known for one event. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a rare and significant crime, in England at least. It's extremely rare we have a case like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.24.78 (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Preceding IP commenter has few other edits. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 10:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - for now at least and see how it progresses. There's a new twist to this story today with police now saying they have been dealing with a hostage situation, and the apparent arrest of two suspects on conspiracy to commit murder charges, who were previously believed to have been hostages. If we were to keep this it would have to be renamed to something different such as Northumbria shootings or Tyneside shootings (apologies for any title errors here, I'm not familiar with the area). There have been several days of news coverage now and multiple events, so it probably passes the WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTABILITY tests. Does it pass WP:NOTNEWS? Possibly. Crimes such as this are rare in the UK, but sadly becoming more frequent. One other thing, the article will need some serious work to improve it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article looks much better now and I like the move to Northumbria shootings. Several events to make this notable. I would now go for a strong keep. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename - This article should be renamed something like '2010 Northumbria shootings' or something like. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would change my vote to keep and review if the article was renamed quickly. We don't normally on principle name articles after murderers, unless they are significant/multiple. See Cumbria shootings, which presently seems more significant on many counts. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've been pretty bold and moved the article. This shouldn't affect whether it's kept or not, but should be correct per WP:MOS.  I've also restructured and rewritten the article to comply with WP:BLP1E and be more about the event than the individual – I used Cumbria shootings as a guide.  matt (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Clearly a highly notable UK event. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator. At this point there does seem to be significant coverage of the event. However, it's still a one-time event for the person. In these cases, it is typical that the person's name redirects to the event article. That's what we have now. I think everything is in good shape after MattGirling's move. Probably nothing left to do here. (Withdraw not possible, as some have voted "delete" already.) &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - as an article about events that are clearly notable. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The AfD was not about the events. We need to close this. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:23, 6 July 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.