Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Thurman


 * 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. No consensus. However, where a BLP is strongly negative and an AFD comes to no consensus, practice is to err on the side that does the least damage to the living person. Closing as delete per WP:BLP. v/r - TP 21:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Thurman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I challenge the notability of this guy outside of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing investigation. This has almost no non-negative information about him, and half the article doesn't even mention him. Nor do more than half the sources. I would say this violates WP:BLP and WP:1E. Aervanath (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So, my opinion is probably that this should either be deleted and redirected to Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 or merged with that article.--Aervanath (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep For me the sources and overall article notability points toward it passing WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete There is absolutely nothing here that can't be (and for that matter, isn't) covered in Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. A clearly non-neutral WP:BLP, we don't even know anything about this guy (date of birth? education? ANYTHING about him aside from working at the FBI?). All that this article exists for is to point out that he might have inflated his credentials in relation to the bombing case. Very clear delete in my opinion; I would be okay with a redirect to Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 but I don't think it's necessary, especially since he was apparently involved with other cases. - Running On Brains (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't think of the term at the time, but I just remembered: This is a classic example of a coatrack article. - Running On Brains (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;SW&mdash; confess 22:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * delete as per WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep He is the author of Practical Bomb Scene investigation which was published by CRC Press  (1st ed., 2006; 2nd ed. 2011), which, in addition to receiving a second edition at a signficant publisher (alone an accomplishment), received a journal review at  and appears to garner a second at this journal article (via Google snippet, quote is "Thurman's book, Practical Bomb Scene Investigation, is an educational tool aimed at investigators of post-bomb crime scene investigations, homeland security professionals, first responders, and intelligence analysts. ...", I don't have journal access to check if that continues into a longer review.)   Doesn't appear have the cite record necessary for WP:SCHOLAR, nor the named professorship needed for WP:ACADEMIC, however the two book reviews approach WP:AUTHOR (3), and if it doesn't meet it on that basis alone, well, the "one event" we already describe presumably provides the margin.  There's a few references to him with respect to pipe bombing investigations, etc. Still, if kept, the article needs to read a lot less BLP1E than it already does, for sure. --joe deckertalk to me 02:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E (nearly all coverage he reveived is about the Lockerbie bombing) or selectively merge anything worthwhile to Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.  Sandstein   07:57, 7 April 2012 (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.