Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Royal Bet


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Royal Bet

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article was originally titled Alex King (bet_winner), and was prodded on grounds of WP:SINGLEEVENT, failing WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E apart from the one event, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources for anything other than the single prank noted. Article has now been renamed, but is still almost entirely about the person who played the prank. The prank itself had brief coverage in the UK national press, but still fails notability per WP:Notability (events), including WP:EFFECT, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:SENSATION. Top Jim (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  —Top Jim (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. One single event. News coverage of the subject has been isolated to the week in 2006 in which this incident occurred. Significant coverage is not evident or persistent to validate notability for either the event or individual. Recommend article deletion. Cindamuse (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment article also appears to be an WP:Autobiography: see WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/WikiRecontributer47/Archive for previous account name of creator. Top Jim (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'll leave it up to others to decide whether this incident is notable, but if it is, this story and this story ought to be considered if we're going into detail about Mr. King. You did read WP:LUC, didn't you? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously think we could ever use either of those articles as a reference for anything related to a living person?! If you did, please make sure you read WP:BLP. Smartse (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't see why not. The Sun isn't exactly renowned for accuracy and balance, but they still wouldn't publish an allegation that serious without evidence to back that up if it goes to court. Failing that, there's quite a bit of interesting material in references 2 and 6 (which came from broadsheets) which have also been glossed over. Not saying we should have an article about that, but there's just as much reason to write this about him as there is for that stunt. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete agree with Cindamuse, there is no evidence of long term notability. Smartse (talk) 20:12, 19 October 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.