Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sid Tarrabain


 * 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. v/r - TP 15:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sid Tarrabain

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Welsh-educated Canadian lawyer. Insufficient evidence of notabilty. (Wikipedia is not for memorials.) &mdash; RHaworth 11:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The subject appears to be notable only for his death in an auto accident WP:BLP1E. This is insufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO.  Msnicki (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication of notability.  The subject was a lawyer who had a non-notable law practice and died in a non-notable way. I disagree that WP:1E/WP:BLP1E applies here; that would apply if the event of his death was notable and should have a Wikipedia article, and that does not appear to be the case.  I'm sure he was a great guy, and deserves a memorial someplace, but Wikipedia is not that place.  See WP:NOTMEMORIAL. TJRC (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Add'l comment; Msnicki revised his comment after my response to it, so my response might appear to be non-sequitor. To clarify:


 * WP:1E (as Msnicki originally cited) does not apply here. That policy is about individuals notable for one event, and suggests that there should be an article about the event rather than about the individual.  In this case, Tarrabain is not notable for one event; he is not notable at all.  If applicable, WP:1E would suggest moving the article to a title about the circumstances of his death.  But that policy does not apply, and there should neither be an article about Tarrabain nor about Tarrabain's death.


 * WP:BLP1E (as Msnicki has now changed to) is even less applicable; first, for the same reasons as WP:1E; and second, because by definition, an article about the deceased person or about that person's death is not a biography of a living person. TJRC (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We agree that the only coverage is of the subject's death in an auto accident and that this is not sufficient to establish notability, do we not? That's all I intended by my WP:!VOTE.  WP:1E and WP:BLP1E basically elaborate the same point, that if all the coverage is about an event other than the subject, that's not sufficient for notability of this subject (though it might establish the notability of the event).  WP:BLP1E is simply little more specific to the context of a WP:BLP, where the subject is an individual.  I found those discussions helpful but apparently they aren't to everyone.   I intended my change as fixing a typo but TJRC refactored it with a strikeout, which I reverted, which I guess has made him unhappy.  I happen to think having your comments refactored is a little more annoying than having someone fail to use strikeout on every change but that could be just me.   Msnicki (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Only evidence of notability I can find on Google is a car crash and the usual puffery about 'prominent lawyer', yet no detailed biography or thorough article about him from a respectable publication (outside of his death, that is). As far as I can tell this BLP cannot be detailed without resorting to original research, and as such cannot adhere to WP:V (maybe as a stub it would, but not in its current state) nor meet the inclusion criteria. The blatant puffery in the article doesn't help its case either. Delete — CharlieEchoTango  — 05:56, 8 September 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.