Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Plummer


 * 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 Libyan Hostage Situation 1984. Actually delete and redirect. This is clear BLP1E and keep arguments by SPAs are not give much if any weight per long standing convention at AFD. I think both delete and redirect are options from the discussion and meta consensus us that non-notable pages should redirect to an appropriate target. Spartaz Humbug! 04:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Robin Plummer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:ONEEVENT, only claim to fame is being taken as a hostage with several other men. The whole article is vaguely promotional as well and doesn't clearly indicate his notability beyond being a hostage.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 19:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems like being taken hostage is not enough for wikipedia!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.112.79 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We have changed the article significantly today. It now speaks more of the Libyan Hostage Situation that up until Gaddafi's death has been under a moratorium due to the release agreement in 1985. We are working very hard to produce more references, but it has it's difficulties as previously stated. Find it odd that John McCarthy (journalist) is not also questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gailsedotes (talk • contribs) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC) — Gailsedotes (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The article is about the hostage situation, not about just Plummer, so should be under a title that reflects that. When you say, "We have changed the article", is that the royal "we" or are you editing in behalf of an organisation? And this discussion is about this article: if you want to question the notability of John McCarthy (which would be a silly thing to do) then that would be a matter for a separate discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer each point:
 * 1) "We" = more than one individual, not part of an organisation
 * 2) We are not questioning Mr. McCarthy's notability, far from it, but Falcon8765 has under his/her interpretation of the rules: only claim to fame is being taken as a hostage with several other men. The whole article is vaguely promotional. Originally the article's content did not differ significantly from Mr. McCarthy's example.

We will be adding the personal information back in and would appreciate any comments/guidance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gailsedotes (talk • contribs) 09:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Gailsedotes (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Rename Libyan hostage taking of 1984 or something like that, and rewrite the article accordingly. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Originally was going to be two articles, one - Libyan Hostage Situation and two the biography. But how can we prove notability without telling the story? If the two articles are split, will the biography be deleted? Or merged into the first article? [example] Guidance welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gailsedotes (talk • contribs) 11:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Gailsedotes (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If the article were to be renamed, I'd replace the introduction and delete the last two sections. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I've learned about the Libyan hostage situation from this article, more so than i had before. Robin Plummer has been somewhat of a trusted ombudsman between the public and the national media on this subject in teh years since 1984. As such this article seems fair, forthright, and should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossp10 (talk • contribs) — Rossp10 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Currently this article is a WP:COATRACK; it's really about the Libyan Hostage Situation of 1984. It should either be renamed or merged somewhere (since there appears to be encyclopedic content supported by real references). Stuartyeates (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Telling the story to prove notability is a WP:COATRACK? The articles have now been split. BUT Robin Plummer is NOT a WP:ONEEVENT, unless you count any other political hostages who have pages on wiki as being a ONE EVENT under the same rules. I agree with the unsigned comment which questions whether being kidnapped and held as a political prisoner is not enough for wiki. Robin Plummer, like John McCarthy (journalist) has also written a book on his experiences that is selling well internationally. Also like [John McCarthy (journalist)]], speaks publicly and is sought by the media as a "trusted ombudsman" on the subject as well. Gailsedotes (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as he is both a Creative professional and a Victim of a high profile crime also seen as spokesman for the group of hostages Gailsedotes (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Gailsedotes (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep If another hostage such as John McCarthy can have an entry I see no reason why Plummer should not. Surf the net to try to find historical references to the Libyan Hostage Situation so called and you will find almost none.  The wiki entry comment about airbrushed from the history books seems to be the case.  Now that Qadafi has gone, it seems to me appropriate for this act of international terrorism to be exposed (the hostage taking), and the heroic efforts of Plummer and the others to see the light of day.  If you google Plummer, there are liberal references to other good stuff that he has done and informed comment that he has made - that's notable, and not just one event.  I say keep it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnFqwerty (talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — JohnFqwerty has made no other edits.
 * Unfortunately most of that does not relate to Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. Concerning the existence of an article on another hostage, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Wikipedia articles do not exist in order to "expose" facts or to help them "see the light of day". In fact, if that is the purpose of the article then it is a reason for deletion, not for keeping, as it is using Wikipedia for promotion. To sate that there exist references to "good stuff that he has done and informed comment that he has made", without actually telling us what or where those references are, is no help at all. References need to be verifiable. I have searched, and found no reliable sources to indicate any significance except for this one event. (If using a Google search, as you suggest, it is necessary to be careful to exclude spurious hits relating to other people of the same name, such as the artist Robin Plummer, former dean of University of Brighton Faculty of Arts, and Robin Plummer the baptist minister, of New River Church.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete A person who has appeared in the news in connection with one event. Otherwise a perfectly ordinary non-notable engineer/management consultant. (The article states that he is also a novelist. However, I have been unable to find any source for this anywhere. Even the article does not actually name any novel he has written.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

* Response: JamesBWatson, Actually it does: 'Section 1:A Brush With Madness. The book "A Brush With Madness" is an eyewitness account written by Robin Plummer' and [First two hits on Amazon] and 5th on Google (for Robin Plummer) this article []. Google search the title of the book, 5 out of 10 links go 1 - directly to the book site, facebook page for the book articles about the book's publication... Also searching Robin Plummer returns the book site and the second hit on Google for the book title is this: Robin Plummer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Plummer Jump to A Brush With Madness‎: The book "A Brush With Madness" is an eyewitness account written by Robin Plummer of his real life experience of the ... Gailsedotes (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "An eyewitness account written by Robin Plummer of his real life experience" is not a novel. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I am writing in support of my own Wiki entry.  I hope it is not regarded as unethical.  Someone today pointed out that Chelsey Sullenberger has a Wiki entry.  "All" he did was land an aeroplane on water and save the lives of 155 people.  I believe that there is no other recorded incident of an aeroplane landing on water and not breaking up.  It was an incredible feat, and made history.  In that respect Sullenberger is notable.  He is notable for only one event in history.  It is worth pointing out that Sullenberger was thrown into a situation not of his making, which by skill and determination he survived.  He did not set out to make history.  I was thrown into a situation not of my making, which by skill and determination I survived.  I did not set out to make history.  But it is a fact that the Libyan Hostage Situation made history as the first of it's kind of hostage situations in modern times, and set a precedent and explored, by the admission of the then Foreign Secretary, wholly new territory for the British Government.  If Sullenberger's Wiki entry should go unchallenge, then so I believe should mine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Plummer (talk • contribs) 12:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)  — Robin Plummer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This article will be judged on its own merits, and the existence of other articles with no more merit is irrelevant: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but make changes, Mr Plummer is noted both in Terry Waite's autobiography, Taken on Trust and Kate Adie's The Kindness of Strangers. The BBC regard him as an expert to comment upon hostage and Libyan affairs.  Novelist is the wrong choice of word to describe him, author would be more appropriate.SixRussell (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — SixRussell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Redirect to Libyan Hostage Situation 1984 (or maybe we can come up with a better title for that article). There are claims above that Mr Plummer has notability as an author, but no evidence has been presented of any significant coverage of his book in independent reliable sources, so we a left with a situation where his only claim of notability is as one of several people involved in that "situation", meaning that the best way to present our coverage of him is as part of that article. I note that the book is published by "A Brush With Madness Ltd", which pretty clearly means that it is self-published, with a strong implication that this article was created to promote the book. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This article did have the Libyan Hostage Situation 1984 content included but was told it was then a WP:COATRACK... Did ask if I split the articles if it would then be redirected and have asked for guidance and received none.Gailsedotes (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry but I totally disagree, I think Mr Plummer's story needs to be heard by the general population - yes he wrote a book, but so did many others about their situation. Mr Plummer's book goes into issues such as torture and beatings, I have read his book and am disappointed that I couldn't find more information on wiki about him, this is the first place I would look. Mr Plummer despite being 25 years out of date continues to be in the media spotlight. The BBC always give his view of events when anything libyan or hostage related comes up. I would be up for a new entry with much more factual based data, however if it came to this entry or no entry I will go with this entry!SixRussell (talk) 23:48, 7 November 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.