Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Fraser (policeman)

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Fraser (policeman)[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Fraser is notable for nothing else than for his death. Although, his death has received a lot of coverage, Fraser is not notable himself and does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete- not notable at all. Masterknighted (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been expanded a bit. Autarch (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets notability threshold, albeit narrowly. We should look to improve and expand not delete, if possible. Quis separabit? 14:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Senior police officer. Assistant Chief Constables generally meet my notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: subject of an ongoing investigation who died unexpectedly during the investigation. I think this meets notability requirements.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sensationalistic Sun-type tripe about an otherwise unnotable policeman. Ephemeral news coverage with no substantial biography. Carrite (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 12:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Not permanently notable. It is not clear that how serious the allegations were, or that they will have any significant lasting effect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject of ingoing investigation. seem to pass WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES (we almost never have kept assistant chiefs) and WP:ONEEVENT (this person is only famous for one controversy). Bearian (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing to this effect on WP:OUTCOMES and I don't recall a British ACC ever being nominated for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having hard time understanding the rationale for the keep votes here. I guess a "no consensus" and a renomination in a few months might make things clearer though. But current text of article doesn't seem to distinguish him from your typical local official who gets in some potential trouble.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't clearly indicate to me why this person would be notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete -- I expect there will be an inquest, and what he had allegedly done wrong will get reported. The accusations must have been serious to lead him to kill himself. Nevertheless, the rank he reached is one to make him notable per se. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron: er, um: "the rank he reached is one to make him notable per se"?? Quis separabit? 18:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe Assistant Chief Constables would be routinely considered suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles, and coverage relating to allegations and subsequent death are not enough to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2012 (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.