Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Burlett

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. kur ykh 01:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Burlett[edit]

I found six articles from the Rutland Herald through Google News that mentioned the subject, one that seemed to have non-trivial coverage (which I have added to the article), but I am not convinced that we can write a decent-length stub that is thoroughly referenced to reliable sources. Given that this is a WP:BLP, I'm not sure that it is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia or the subject for this article to remain. the skomorokh 20:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think there's more to Burlett's career than simply a google news search. Burlett's a local hero, something I wish to expound on in future edits. Is there any chance we could fold this into one of the municipal articles, if you think this doesn't work?Michaelcuddyer (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I would be happy to withdraw this nomination if an appropriate municipal article to merge it to could be found. Unfortunately, Wikipedia can only recognize what so-and-so-source says about Mr. Burlett, not his respect in the community. Regards, the skomorokh 21:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local constables can't be notable without significant coverage etc. from multiple reliable sources, and the consensus is that local news coverage doesn't suffice. Keep him if there's significant coverage added, but unless more can be added, there's no way that this guy can pass our notability standards. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established per Wikipedia guidelines. Nominator's good faith efforts in this regard are appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:02, 18 November 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.