Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Krahe

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. Consensus that the subject is notable per WP:PERP and also WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Krahe[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PERP Heyallkatehere (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Heyallkatehere (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Krahe is one of the more famous corrupt police officers in Australian history, and the article peculiarly undersells his notability. There are pages and pages of relevant Google Books hits. The peak of his notoriety was in the 1970s (and early 1980s as things were uncovered) so a general Google search turns up lower quality stuff than I'd have expected, but any book on organised crime in Sydney in the late twentieth century, or on the numerous notable cases he was a key figure in, quite a few books dealing with organised crime in Queensland, as well as anything on corrupt police inevitably features Krahe in a significant way. He passes both #1 and #2 of WP:PERP by an an absolute mile: he's a key suspect in the murder of at least three Wikipedia-notable people, all of which have multiple books about their killings, and he's received three decades of sustained coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Australia has never been known to have corrupt police officers and I think this one deserves his own article because how notable this case was since the 1970s. He also passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does not matter whether or not Australia has no significant record of police corruption. The subject, on the basis of evidence alone, is distinctly notable and of encyclopaedic interest. Try as one might, one certainly cannot see a reason for which the article should be deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2022 (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.