Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaun husband


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Shaun Husband

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy was declined with the reason that there is a claim to notability, but I'm not seeing it. Tragic, yes, but being killed in a war is not a notability criterion. ... disco spinster   talk  23:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - while I believe we should respect and remember those who have parished in these wars, Wikipedia is not the appropriate means for doing so. Can't find notability. Racepacket (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A7 No claim of notability. (Letting this go longer risks creating unnecessary drama, too.)  Peacock (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete A7 as there is no claim of notability from reliable sources. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 00:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is neither asserted or shown. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Edward321 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete "Wikipedia is not a memorial" may seem harsh, but it's one of the more democratic rules that we have, and a necessity for an encyclopedia that can be contributed to by anyone. Mandsford (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unsure - Only because it just seems wrong to delete. This page was set up, looking at the history, by his widow Erin Kerr just two days ago. It's perhaps her way of getting closure. I know that Wikipedia is not a memorial and I agree with Edward321, however, I personally haven't got the sang froid to delete this grieving widow's words two days after she has lovingly put them on Wikipedia. I was wondering whether we could go against our own principles and recommend that this gets deleted after a longer period of time. This is an extraordinary case and was wondering whether we could perhaps set a mini precedent here, in this case. After all, it is the widow who has set up this piece, just two days ago. Perhaps give it a month? (Yes, I know that this is contrary to countless Wiki guidelines, I've been an editor for long enough, but this particular case seems to call out for special treatment, don't you think?) Tris2000 (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I had considered that as well, but I note that Mr. Husband died five years ago. I think that, as an unwritten rule, administrators tend to give the usual five days before making a ruling on memorial articles, and that editors generally refrain from asking for a ruling.   Mandsford (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It was my speedy that was declined. I have a lot of sympathy for his widow, and respect for a soldier who gave his life for his country, but wikipedia is not a memorial. Syrthiss (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 21 October 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.