Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Sheardown

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Sheardown[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable outside of Canadian Caper. Not enough information can be found to justify his own article. Don't believe the information that is here (e.g. date of birth, additional spouse) justifies merging. Was previously a redirect to Canadian Caper but was recently made its own page, so would prefer some concencus instead of boldly performing a redirect. PriceDL (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obituaries in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Guardian, Toronto Star and Globe and Mail convince me that my original redirect was not the right choice. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those sources suggest to me that he be treated under the guidelines of WP:1E, and also that his role in the event is insufficient to warrant its own article, as per WP:1E. PriceDL (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1E states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." You could argue about whether the event was highly significant, but his role in it definitely was. All those obits indicate others think so too. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The obituaries provided by Clarityfiend from international newspapers demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Clarityfiend quoted WP:1E, which says, ""If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I agree that Canadian Caper and the Iran hostage crisis are high significant and that John Sheardown's role within them was "a large one".
Cunard (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- in addition to sufficient coverage, "John Sheardown, Mary Catherine O'Flaherty, Roger Lucy, and Laverna Dollimore were all made Members of the Order of Canada", which is a significant national order (link to Gbooks previews. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2017 (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.