Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Dallaire

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, due to the following factors:

(1) All established users apart from the nominator participating in the discussion supported the retention of the article, at least in some form. I considered "move" comments to favor retention of the article insofar as moving the page would not involve any deletion. The "keep" closure only disposes of the question of whether the article should be deleted entirely; editors supporting renaming are free to propose a move on the talk page and at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

(2) The sources provided in André_Dallaire#References indicated that André Dallaire has received sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline.

(3) WP:BLP1E, which the nominator cited as grounds for deletion, is inherently quite subjective in its application. Since no other established users participating in the discussion believed that it supported complete removal of the article, it would have been inappropriate to delete the article on such grounds.

(4) The article contained no extreme policy violations that would compel its deletion in a manner decidedly against consensus, such as clear copyright violations, or being comprised entirely of unsourced controversial information concerning living persons. John254 02:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

André Dallaire[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, as he is notable for one event. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, Speedy keep and close - He is not notable for a single event. He is notable for multiple, related events: 1) The Breaking 2) The Arrest 3) The Trial/Legal proceedings 4) The security repercussions his actions created 5) His coverage by the media. The article as it stands is crap, and doesn't cover him or the events correctly or totally, but this is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to expand.

I must point out that my request to speedy close, is because this article was mentioned in one of the AfDs for the Gitmo prisoners, and after more than two years it is now that this is raised, a few hours after the mention. Before I do so, please tell me why we shouldn't think this is a WP:POINTy AfD? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not five events; it's the series of consequences proceeding from a single event. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked how some other article could be deleted when this article existed; I checked this article and considered that Mr. Dallaire was not notable. I certainly wasn't trying to make a point. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep depending on the event, the people can be notable . The attempted assasination of a head of governments is significant enough historically to count as notable. DGG (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Attempting to assassinate a president unfortunately makes one notable. It seems this AfD was made in bad faith as I found it coming from here and it seems it was done to make a point. NoVomit (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to an article about the event. He is only notable for this event and the event itself is far more notable than the man himself. The references give further proof of that. DoubleBlue (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to an article about the event per DoubleBlue. While I can see the point that attempting to assassinate a national leader should constitute notability, this is far from being on the level of John Hinckley, Jr. The event is notable; the person is just the answer to a particularly obscure trivia question. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how is it different from Hinckley? Hinckley's previous obsession with an movie star? that's the sort of thing we normally think totally by itself unnotable as gossip and tabloid fodder. What made each of them notable is the attempted assassination. I agree it's less well known to people in the United States, but that's not the standard. DGG (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most people, Canadians and Americans alike, if asked "who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan?" could say "John Hinckley, Jr.", whereas even Canadians couldn't tell you that "André Dallaire" is the name of the guy who broke into 24 Sussex and attempted to stab Jean Chrétien. The incident is certainly notable, nobody's disagreeing with that — but even most Canadians can't actually name the person, which is why the article should be about the incident. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, as pointed out already it was nominated to prove a point by a user who wished to delete the biography of a Guantanamo prisoner. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (A Canadian who obviously can name Dallaire and believes he easily meets notability criteria)[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.