Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Kirby

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated, a tough call with good comments on all sides. The main concern is whether commanders of the Serious Crime Squad or QPM's are per se notable or not, or whether the head of a major investigation is notable. But:

  1. The "Squad" itself is a division in the West Midlands police rather than a major national police force, it would seem. If it has greater standing then the article doesn't say so. Commanders of divisions in regional police forces probably aren't especially notable.
  2. Senior detectives and QPM award winners are not especially notable (per comments in this AFD), and
  3. The claim to fame of running a high profile case (James Bulger) isn't really grounds for an article, since a person notable as a participant in one main incident is usually handled by a redirect to that incident anyhow.

Does all this added together make him notable? People might want to look him up, but then again not everyone that could be looked up has a BIO article, that's what AFD is intended to decide. On the whole the AFD seems to veer towards non-notability, and deletion, and the above concerns tend to support that. Delete without prejudice against trying it again on a stronger basis.

[edit] Albert Kirby

Albert Kirby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Biographical article which is completely unreferenced for almost a whole year. It seems like this material should be deleted since nobody is interested in improving it, and because of liability concerns. Mikeblas 09:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Note. I've added some references to the article. Jakew 11:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Great, thanks! I think the question of notability is still left, tho ... -- Mikeblas 18:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. I agree, and I've yet to decide which way to go. On one hand, he seems to have been mentioned in 3 books, numerous news articles, and some journal articles. On the other, I suspect that an awful lot of people receive that particular medal, and his main claim to notability is his connection with the Bulger case. Jakew 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment. The medal is probably the best case, I think, as I'd look at the book and article mentions as not substantial. -- Mikeblas 03:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I think you're right. Weak delete. Jakew 10:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep if the medal and sources added by Jakew establish notability, otherwise redirect to Murder of James Bulger, the case he is famous for working on. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - Only known for that one investigation unless he's really an "expert" in his field Corpx 16:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Seems like an important and notable person. Academic Challenger 01:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete --Hooperbloob 03:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just being at the head of this investigation isn't grounds enough for notability; indeed I'd argue it's bordering on attempting to inherit notability from the investigation - which doesn't apply on Wikipedia. Perhaps that's just my interpretation, but still. What's left, then, is to ask what else makes him notable? For instance, whilst Ian Blair and one of his colleagues (the name passes me by right now, unfortunately) are notable for their role in the investigation in to & death of Jean Charles de Menezes - especially the release of "inaccurate information" - make them notable, Kirby seems to have no such role beyond heading the investigation. This leads me to believe notability just isn't there beyond this one incident. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - very tough call this one, and I've wrestled with it for some time. The QPM is unconvincing; these are issued in large numbers. The main claim to notability is leading the Bulger case. Though there are many references, they mostly say he led the case and there are no sources stating that he he did anything notable in the investigation. If the subject was truly notable there would be other achievements to record. As I say, a tough one but on balance he fails to make the cut. TerriersFan 21:49, 1 September 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.