Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Gauci


 * 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   no consensus. I am overriding the non-admin relist because WP:RELIST wasn't followed. Relisting an AFD is done in order to achieve a full debate when there has been only one or two contributors to the discussion, not as a tie-breaker when plenty of people have commented and opinions are split. This is the very definition of no consensus. There are some suggestions of merging, which can be taken further on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony Gauci

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

DELETE. Textbook example of WP:ONEEVENT this person is quite the opposite of noteworthy. JBsupreme (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Delete He's only notable for one event and searches on Google indicate the same. Ilikepie2221 (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, although I think most of the merging has already been done. Although I don't think there is enough to keep an article on him, he appears to have been an important witness in an important trial. Location (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial. Most of it is there already, apart from the allegation about the $2m reward. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's a choice between just delete and keep (i.e no-one's prepared to do the merge work), then I'd keep. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think you will lose important information merging this into the bombing article. There are a lot of exceptions to WP:ONEEVENT such as the bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. --MarsRover (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with User:MarsRover. To quote from WP:BLP1E, "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." I don't think anyone is suggesting that the event was not significant. And given that the individual's testimony played a core role in Megrahi's conviction and then his subsequent appeals, obviously the individual's role was substantial. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life (on Wikipedia). No, if the living person has not personally received substantial lasting coverage by multiple third party publications then said person should not have an article here at all per WP:BLP and BLP1E. JBsupreme (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has been in Wikipedia since 2006 and nobody has reacted against it until the sudden interest in the Lockerbie bombing got a lot of people to read the articles concerning it. WP:ONEEVENT states that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Well, the fact that Tony Gauci's witness statement (for which he is claimed to have been paid $2 million, and which a number of high profile people have since questioned) was the sole reason for the arrest and conviction of al-Megrahi must definitely be regarded as playing a large role in a highly significant event. If you want to remove articles about unimportant people from Wikipedia, there are thousands of others that are much better candidates for removal. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.