Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Vetter

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. Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Vetter

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

Delete due to lack of notability. State Trooper killed in the line of duty. Per WP:VICTIM, subject is only known for being a victim of a crime. Wikipedia is additionally not the place for a memorial. Nothing to indicate notability here through topical or general notability guidelines. Sources are merely a bunch of redundant articles about his death and how he died. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, known only for dying. Hairhorn (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No real notability here. Disavian (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, his service to Texas should be honored, but not here. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't really understand why this should be deleted when there's pages for fictional characters of no importance and that aren't even real. Classic example being this: Christie Monteiro. Not to mention so called actors who have appeared in about three films and can hardly be called "famous". I've seen plenty of pages like this. This cop is a real human who died serving his country and what makes it unique is the fact that his death was recorded and is used for the training of new police officers. He's not unknown to people. That's why it should stay, it's not a normal police officer death.RealiityCheck (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RealiityCheck blocked as a sock of the page creator. The existence (or not) of other pages has no bearing on whether this page in particular should stay. Hairhorn (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG. Not unknown. His death set a standard for training of new police.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might pass GNG, but that's no guarantee that an entry is warranted, particularly when it fails the guidelines for people known only for one event. Hairhorn (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a news source, nothing particularly significant about this man apart from his unfortunate death. --He to Hecuba (talk) 23:30, 3 February 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.