Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Tatham

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 no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Tatham[edit]

Fails WP:N. Wikipedia is not a news source, coverage was only temporary. ⇔ EntChickie 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the spirit and intent of the consensus not to cover news events is that not every one-off news item or report is deemed worthy of coverage. In this case, the story was widely reported internationally, and was covered repeatedly over nine months. --Canley (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above, this seems to be on the "keep" side of transient coverage. JJL (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The events are definitely notable. (Perhaps a title modification would help.) --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable and well-covered but this article needs immediate attention for wikification and encyclopedic tone. - Dravecky (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Canley (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nominator, this is not In the News. Is there anything about the biography that makes this person more than a news event? Not that I can see. He appears to be an official doing his job, and merely doing one's job is never sufficient for encyclopedic coverage. If the person is still being discussed in a year's time, there will be need of an article, but the fact that many people are saying the name today does not mean that the individual biography is notable. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians are all officials doing their job, you can't say they're "never notable". As I said above, this has been reported on since April 2007, so for nearly 11 months. If we're going to set arbitrary timeframes that make people notable - and you've said a year - he's nearly there. Or did you mean another year from now? And then, where do we stop? Delete everything that's not being discussed any more? --Canley (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember that notability is not temporary. --- Taroaldo (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is a borderline case in my opinion. Though it was covered in many media over several months, it still seems to be WP:BIO1E over one event, thus I'm not sure a balanced WP:NPOV article can be written and that it fails WP:BIO. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:23, 1 April 2008 (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.