Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erhard D. Hahn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this non-notable bio whose subject returned no true positive Goolge hits. Possible vanity judging by the contributor of the image. Draeco 00:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete The information source can be verified via Alberta History. Photograph source did not come from the the subject matter, but did come from a family. --Onecanuck 00:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where and how exactly can this be verified? --Rob 01:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He is probably a pillar of his community, and certainly respected and loved by his neigbors and family members, but that is not enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia. --Ezeu 00:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if the content can be verified it does not seem notable. Crunch 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Ezeu; fails WP:BIO. OhnoitsJamieTalk 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the founder and/or creator of a law enforcement agency would be a sufficient claim of notability, but the article specifically denotes his role as an advisor - far too little to assert significance. Most of the contents goes in praising the importance of the Louis Bull Police Service, not the subject of the article. Add to all these its complete unverifiability, and the result is clear: delete. - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator, does not meet WP:BIO inclusion guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of verifiability. Even a search through newspapers and magazines that aren't free online, doesn't turn up anything. If the person's contributions were all covered and verified by the media, he would easily qualify as notable. If somebody finds press coverage mentioning him, I may change my vote. --Rob 01:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No 3rd party verification. Ruby 01:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - Unfortunately, this is unverifiable. Ashibaka tock 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete There are aspects of this article that are important if verifiable...the on-reserve policing had an origin somewhere but unfortunately, this is unverifiable. (Stormbay 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Weak delete per nom. --Terence Ong 05:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no verification of any kind. no hits for "Erhard Dietrich Hahn" on google, and nothing related for ""Erhard Hahn" canada" -- Astrokey44|talk 15:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless it can be redirected elsewhere (Alberta law enforcement?) Hurricanehink 17:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Latinus 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Jim62sch 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 05:23Z
- 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.