Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Malley

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. postdlf (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Malley[edit]

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

Routine news with local Internet coverage. One local news report does not establish significance or importance for an encyclopedia entry. Fails WP:BLP and WP:1E. This article was originally CSD A7 and was was downgraded to PROD by another editor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. There is a difference between significance and notability. Unfortunately. While there is more than local coverage, this does not rise to the level of significant coverage from reliable sources. While the impact of the subject's actions do rise to the level of significance, "the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has issued new safety procedures," they do not make him notable. While it would probably have been simpler to just let this proceed to a WP:PROD deletion, this works as well. As there are sources, they are best evaluated here. Dloh cierekim 03:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The matter is sub judice. Per WP:CRIME, "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Warden (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nodding along with previous points. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2013 (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.