Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Handl


 * 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; any coverage is based on WP:ONEEVENT. There is agreement that it would be appropriate to mention this person/event within another article, if a suitable such article exists (which seems questionable at best). If such an addition is made to another article, I don't think there would be any problem with using this title as a redirect to that article. Rlendog (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Richard Handl

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely and totally obvious one-event non-notable person Dendlai (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Completely covered by world wide press. Highly unusual with home experimentation at this level with nuclear processes. And similar to David Hahn. Electron9 (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. Check WP:ONEEVENT. And... really... You think this is encyclopediae-worthy? That's not even mentioning the current, and likely future, BLP concerns. Dendlai (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, now only ~350 people per day reads the article. I guess it's completely uninteresting.. Electron9 (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. One event, sure, but that guideline specifically refers to whether you cover an individual separately, or only as part of a greater article. In this case, there is no greater article. It may be appropriate to morph the article into something more general and rename it, but given this was a somewhat unusual event I don't know you could generalise it. Regardless, that would be a cleanup issue; deletion does not seem to be the way to go. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no greater article because it was a very tiny event; a curiousity. Hence why it is so non-notable.Dendlai (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But the extent of the international coverage it received suggests it is notable. So my only concern is how best to include it; I think there is no doubt that we should. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - One event with no lasting impact, no damage (collateral or otherwise), and no victims. Subject not notable for any other reason either. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  11:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Run-of-the-mill WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, and so on. Simply being in the news for a time is not a valid rebuttal to either of these. Tarc (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - in this instance Tarc's right on the money. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. A pure NOTNEWS case. The news event itself isn't even significant enough to bring BLP1E into play (and the guy's probably lucky about the "BLP" part). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS says "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". I fail to see how that covers this case. Further more, articles such as this one are now analysing the event and putting it into historical context - this goes beyond mere news reporting. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete If something has actually happened, like he blew himself or others up accidentally or something to that effect, then there would probably be a case for keeping the article. (Though it would probably need to be an article on the incident and not the person). But nothing happened. Nothing at all. He was arrested, end of story. There's nothing encyclopedic here. Silver  seren C 00:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. There might be another article where a sentence or two would be appropriate on the subject, considering the news it did get. But that's it. Not sure what article would be appropriate though. Silver  seren C 00:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Such rare unusual reactor building people should surely be noted. Nbr (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Perhaps we need a single notability guideline for WP:N (reactor building people). Tarc (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2011 (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.