Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Sokaluk

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 February 17.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 - Speedy deleted as an obvious BLP problem. Not a chance of this being kept. There is already sourced commentary in the fires article - Peripitus (Talk) 00:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Sokaluk[edit]

per WP:BLP1E. The person in question is notable for only one event, and a negative one at that. The person has not yet been convicted of any charge. Given that the article discusses in detail the online vigilantism and other personal threats made against the subject of this article, it is not clear to me that Wikipedia needs to add to this already heated environment. Mattinbgn\^talk 23:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and support deletion. Privatemusings (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS both seem to apply, and I agree fully with Mattinbgn's points. - Bilby (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I agree entirely with the nominator's rationale. This article can only descend into a potential source of trouble at this stage in the proceedings. - Longhair\^talk 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E and various other concerns. Orderinchaos 00:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. WP:BLP1E, and WP:BLP generally: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.". Wikipedia does not need to be part of the lynch mob. Djanga (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful info to the article on the fires, then delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (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.