Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen John Sutton 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Stephen John Sutton
an article on thsi subject was previously deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen John Sutton), but this version seems noticeably different. It isn't as obvious of an attempt to plead this guy's case, but that's still what it is. R. fiend 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment You may wish to read User_talk:Andrevan prior to voting.
- Delete sad but not notable. Dlyons493 Talk 21:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable (rather than on the appeal from Kate Gibbons on User_talk:Andrevan; if the subject were in fact notable, I would vote to keep and protect). MCB 00:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep if a more independent source of information can be provided within the article for the purposes of neutrality. Hall Monitor 20:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Sutton is notable for several reasons. It appears he was taken advantage of by drug traffickers due to his mental impairment. It's always remarkable when a person is arrested for trafficking drugs but has no drugs in their possession at the time of arrest. This nomination for deletion is coming from some people who are trying to bully and harass Cluse and Gibbons into using a particular foreign prisoner advocacy service, that being Foreign Prisoner Support Service. This is the same outfit which has been spamming their URL (http://foreignprisoners.com) all over the List of Australians in international prisons entry. It should also be noted that the person posting defamatory material about Kate Gibbons, while using the pseudonym "Robert Frost," and who claims to be from a UK based prisoner advocacy organisation, is posting from 144.131.198.139 (see http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=144.131.198.139). This IP is in a block assigned to Telstra in Brisbane, Australia, which unremarkably is the location of Kay Danes & Tony Fox of FPSS. FPSS are a fully unethical mob who will do anything to smear and defame prisoners and their families. The mere fact that anyone is trying to have this article pulled off of Wikipedia on any basis other than the facts related to Sutton's case should tell you that there's very good cause to keep it. --Diana Elgar 00:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep has (as pointed out elsewhere) had media attention and although maybe minor is notable. CambridgeBayWeather 00:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence of notability. --fvw* 01:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- fvw, What is the Wikipedia standard for notability? --Diana Elgar 02:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Notability and he would seem to fit under these rules. CambridgeBayWeather 06:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Hi CambridgeBayWeather, thanks for that. If notabilty in Wikipedia is synonymous with newsworthy then it appears that the issue at very least meets that test. Thanks, --Diana Elgar 08:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Before voting, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_John_Sutton for background information on why this article has been nominated for deletion so many times. --Diana Elgar 04:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- keep please this person seems notable it reminds me of that movie maria full of grace Yuckfoo 04:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Needs work, but deletion is an over-reaction. Andjam 05:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the article as I have written it is very thin. How much detail should be included? The main source of information available at this moment is http://stephensutton.com which was put online by Stephen's sister, Ann Cluse. Admittedly, it will be hard to get NPOV info from such a site, but at least the basic facts as they are known are covered in that site. Thanks, --Diana Elgar 08:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Should this article be labelled as a stub in its current form? --Diana Elgar 10:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Current article does not establish encyclopedic notability. Gamaliel 08:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Someone appealed to me on my talk page about this, but I have nothing to do with it and I have not taken a stance either way. Andre (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Would prefer year of birth instead of 41 year old, for obvious reasons. Alf melmac 10:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep one could argue that this article/bio is just as notable as Schapelle Corby, Michelle Leslie or all those other dumb asses who brought drugs in another country and expect to get away scat - free. Molotov (talk)
23:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
