Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hootan Roozrokh

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. WP:BLP1E applies here, and I am inclinced to close tight AFDs on living people with that in mind. If and when there is exceptional coverage (not "I think there will be") then this can be readdressed via WP:DRV. Neıl ☎ 10:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hootan Roozrokh

Hootan Roozrokh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete nn criminal defendant accused of elder abuse - the rest of the more scandalous charges were dismissed - written very close to an attack page in tone but ultimately garnering little more than the expected publicity for a criminal defendant of this sort - i.e., not notable - so not notable we don't know when or where he was born, red flags of non-notability in a modern biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Move the article to Death of Ruben Navarro on the principle of "cover the event, not the person". --Eastmain (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and and I think in this case the notability will be that of the surgeon. . A surgeon accused of hastening the death of a patient for organ transport is notable, & there is as one would expect national coverage. Obviously needs careful editing and watching. DGG (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Accusations are cheap and do not generally confer notability on the accused or accuser, as was eventually demonstrated by all the handwringing over the Duke lacrosse articles. One can make whatever scandalous, but here ultimately unproven and dismissed allegations, but that does not alter WP:BLP1E, and the death of the Navarro was not a notable event any more than any other. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the first-ever charge and got major media coverage.[1] Firsts are more notable than everyday cases. That said, DGG is right about the need for careful editing and watching; I'll put it on my watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Those who are expecting this to be ultimately notable as the "first" of a possible future trend are forgetting that such an expectation is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If the anticipated trend does indeed develop, this can be revisited at the appropriate time. B.Wind (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I could see renaming it to The People of the State of California vs. Hootan Roozrokh,[2] in an effort to cover the event instead of the person, but the mere fact that a surgeon was charged with a crime in the course of his job is notable. ASTS believes that transplant surgeons recruiting has been harmed by these charges, and most OPOs are holding off on DCD work until the case is not only settled, but largely forgotten by state politicians. We don't need a crystal ball to say that it has already affected many people other than the defendant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 9 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.