Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Corcoran (ranger)

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. — Aitias // discussion 00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Corcoran (ranger)[edit]

Disputed prod. Again, while interesting, Wikipedia is not a memorial and I'm not sure he's notable enough. I really don't see how adding the ISBN number really changes things but fine. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:ONEEVENT. However, if he is indeed a popular legend in the area, the article may focus more on giving that some secondary sources, in which case I may change my vote to keep. For now, it's delete, though. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I would suggest, if you meet the criteria and justification as a subject of a book; should be notability enough. After a quick search I had also found this link where it shows he was the first casualty for what was then the police force for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland Rangers.--HJKeats (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep 87000 ghits on the term danny corcoran ranger, which isn't bad for someone who existed long before the internet.Vulture19 (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit only 153 hits on "danny corcoran" ranger. Still, won't change my opinion too muchVulture19 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The amazing and tragic story of Danny Corcoran is notable enough to have stayed in the consciousness of Canadians for over 70 years. Esasus (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have said he is the subject of public interest. The article just needs to be improved. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-evidently not notable per our articulated GNG standards. Close should discount unfounded assertions of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article has enough sources to show the topic meets WP:N. ONEEVENT is a real issue, but the topic seems obviously notable per our own guidelines. Could you explain why you feel the sources don't meet the bar that WP:N has set? Hobit (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Central subject of an entire book that is recommended to "be in the library of every search and rescue professional, career or volunteer." by an American SAR Co-ordinator[1], and part of Canadian folklore. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. The two sources seem to meet WP:N. ONEEVENT is harder, but I'm having problems !voting to delete a topic that has a whole book about it. Hobit (talk) 21:19, 21 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.