Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary peach

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, stacked votes have been stricken and not considered on the basis of this deletion. Jersey Devil 20:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gary peach

Gary peach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nonnotable local sex offender. Backed by one news article, which does not support many of the details in the Wikipedia article. No reason why this criminal is significant enough for an article per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
  • Delete Not notable. Sadly, there are too many like him for one individual to be notable. This page also has the potential to turn into an attack page quickly. GhostPirate 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete He's not notable enough to meet WP:BIO, google search comes up with few hits, seams like a non notable news story RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete The page should stay, its 100% accruate and how can you say this isnt important. He is a convicted paedophile we owe it to the local community of Wallington to have this here so people can find out about it. If this can stop him doing anything else to any other children surely thats good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarshaltonNews (talk • contribs) (article creator)
    • Dont DeleteComment. The whole idea of Wikipedia is to give people information they want. People would want this information if living in the area and would proove alot helpful than other pages such as sports pages. This is a real life problem and would really help alot of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarshaltonNews (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP THIS PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.181.95 (talk • contribs) — 81.152.181.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Dont Delete It is a piece of news important to many, and therefore is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backsss (talk • contribs) and first contrib from this ID.
  • Delete. Non-notable bio. -- RHaworth 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete The article is notable and has a 100% accruate link. Peach is notable in Surrey just because you haven't heard of him doesnt make him not notable. And isnt the point of wiki to do this? Before this discussion you didnt know who Gary Peach was and now because of the article you do —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarshaltonNews (talk • contribs)
Comment: Please read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for reasons why this is being considered for deletion. There is no question that this affects some people, but all Wikipedia articles must meet minimum notability requirements. Also, I would ask that if you are using multiple accounts to add "Don't Delete" votes to this discussion, you stop. We have rules about this kind of thing. -GhostPirate 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No! It's very obvious and lets have some sympathy with the person doing it! Mike 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - one source in a local newspaper article is not enough to establish notability per WP:BIO. Wikipedia's role is not to protect the people of Wallington from sex offenders; it's to write an encyclopedia. Delete unless further independent sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete Please explain what Wikipedia is gaining from deleting this page. Its another 100% accruate article about a figure in Surrey/London area. Why delete when it is just adding to your encyclopedia and giving people more information. Also why should this be deleted and something like Michael Jackson's case be? He was proved innocent and therefore any story linking to that in incorrect and lies and therefore is not notable either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.80.89 (talk • contribs)
    • Please read WP:N. Michael Jackson's case was the subject of widespread coverage in the worldwide news media, ergo it is notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia. It's true that he was proved innocent, but the case is still notable. To include an article on Wikipedia, we need multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, and there's no evidence that the subject of this article has received such coverage. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Tragically there is nothing to make this sex offender particularly notable. As was said above, sadly there are too many sex offenders out there to make this one special enough for an article. In addition the The current location of Peach is unknown. line makes me worry that this page may end up being used to hound and attack him, which is a poor use of wikipedia. Improbcat 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete I can't see anything notable about this person. I checked for other paedophiles in wikipedia and came across [1] this person was notable because they were a child expert that was convicted. Wikipedia is not the right place for this article! Mike 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Was this page deleted already? I remember marking it for lack of notability (the hair makes it memorable) but the history is short. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 18:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Gary peach was deleted once by NawlinWiki before listing it here to generate community opinion. Gary Peach has been deleted 4 times. Leebo86 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of notability AlfPhotoman 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable. To those that want to keep: should we commit Wikipedia to pages on each and every sex offender? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Megan's Law. Krimpet 21:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a sex-offender registry. Unimportant pedophile. Mangojuicetalk 21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Those in the local area are quite well aware of Peach already. We saw what happened when the News Of The World started publicising paedophiles - most of them disappeared. EliminatorJR Talk 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete Would you say this paedophile isnt important if he was molestering your children? - 82.43.80.89 has already expressed an opinion in this discussion.
  • Delete particularly in view of the near-vandalism arguments to keep above.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Stong Delete Keeping this would set a bad precedent. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • delete as BLP violation "convicted of downloading and viewing child porn", which is bad but hardly notable, but the article tries to imply accusations of much worse, which has not been proven, and according to the article itself, is based on community gossip. He has not been convicted of molesting anybody. Limited to the V part, NN.DGG 05:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivial stuff lacking evidence, and WP:NOT a tabloid for vigilante "justice". (And now perhaps I will get excited and incoherent comments like this.) -- Hoary 08:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, but why would anyone even go to Wikipedia to look this up? There are websites just for listing sex offenders, which are bound to have more information and be more useful to people who want to know.--Parsleyjones 22:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Very bad idea if this was kept. Not notable enough for an article. Davewild 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - simply not bad enough! BlueValour 23:12, 9 March 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.