Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie Williams

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 keep. Without an appropriate merge target, this is the only viable option. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Williams

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

People known for a single event should not have their own article. No evidence that this event generated anything more than momentary news coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the incident has continued to receive attention, as stated in the article, shows that it is notable. The article is really about the event, it is just named for the rescued person for convenience. It could also be named for the rescuer just as well. A title like "Arizona midair rescue" would be kind of awkward. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a class "single event" for which the Guiness Book is great, but not Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, until a suitable merge target is created. This is a classic BLP1E case, but BLP1E gives no guidance on what do do when the central event is notable but lacks an article. Therefore, WP:PRESERVE would appear to be controlling policy, and the "good information" here should be kept even though the form of the article is not preferred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per Hullaballoo's well-stated reasoning. The content of this article seems worthwhile and significant to the general topic of skydiving; however, when I poked around in Category:Parachuting I didn't see an obvious target--something like skydiving rescues or even skydiving safety might be appropriate, if it existed. Parachuting does have a list of Records, but there's probably more worthwhile content here than would fit on a list. If someone can suggest an appropriate rename for this, that would be fine too.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Skydiving accident investigation where it would fit (as being about the event of an accident), and also remove that article from being woefully lacking in solid content. BLP1E would then not be a problem, for the person is absolutely BLP1E. Collect (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate other article. Perhaps a new one should be created--Skydiving rescues or Skydiving safety like Arxiloxos mentioned above, perhaps. It seems like it's something notable enough to be mentioned somewhere, but doesn't need its own article. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither the subject (BLP1E) nor the event (seems pretty ROUTINE) are notable. — Bility (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My red pencil says, poor use of the word routine in a sentence. ROUTINE is for events scheduled in advance. Anarchangel (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when the next "bear-in-a-tree" event is scheduled, as I would like to attend.

— Bility (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The helpfully intended suggestion of 'Skydiving accident investigation' is not a pertinent target and is not lacking. I don't know why everyone keeps trying to push everything, however vaguely related to 'single events' all the time; perhaps they read the essay Wikipedia:Recentism that is cruising for a bruising if anyone ever notices that it directly contradicts one of the Pillars of WP, WP:N's WP:NTEMP. Anarchangel (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.