Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius Guppy (2nd nomination)

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. The article has changed siginificantly since nomination so much so that my nomination is no longer applicable.. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darius Guppy

Darius Guppy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I actually question the article notability. The page appears to be largely unbalanced and does not appear that it can be corrected. Reads like an attack page, and is just a mess of BLP issues. Notable for one event? Perhaps an article on the actual "robbery". Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This policy may be applicable here WP:ONEEVENT. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Obvious notability for multiple events - dozens of references in news and books. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just seeing the one event in the lead, and some supporting information further down. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless we have much much better sources. Tese are thin and tabloidish, not sufficiently analytical and dispassionate. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• We may be sure that newpapers such as the Daily Mail checked their accounts carefully since British libel laws are quite severe. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep asserts notability, with reliable sources. Al Tally (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep Coverage beyond the largest event is thin, but it's there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, reliable sources demonstrate the notability of the subject. "Tabloidish" is not a word I recognize from policy. --Dhartung | Talk 19:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, This is factual information which affects several leading members of the British Aristocracy, close members of the British Royal Family and also cleary atributed contacts of British Parliamentary contacts including the new Mayor of London from May 2008. How can a statement of facts, well substantiated and about to be very explicitely referenced be an attack??. This is a matter of the utmost public interest. User: Cj1340 21:12 5 May 2008 (BST)
• Keep - Notability is not in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Darius Guppy is clearly notable. Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Was covered in Sunday Times among other reputable periodicals. By the way, my natural instincts would be to delete...Guppy is an alumnus of my old school, the Lycée Charles de Gaulle, and the bounder has rather let the side down, by Gad! Rhinoracer (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - enough third party sources to reference his notability, and expand the article. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2008 (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.