Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iorworth Hoare

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. WP:BLP1E applies here. If there's an appropriate article for it, it would be fine to discuss the specific event and reaction to it rather than focusing on Hoare himself (per our policy on these kind of BLP cases, "cover the event, not the person.")--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iorworth Hoare

Iorworth Hoare (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Another lottery winner article with questionable encyclopedic value. Fails WP:BLP1E; only reason for being in the news was winning the lottery while on weekend furlough from prison. Article has serious BLP problems too (although these could theoretically be fixed - the bigger question is whether this is a notable subject for an article to begin with.) No broader assertion to notability. Delete KleenupKrew (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 16:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • keep as notable due to repeated media coverage. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • keep The individual is notable for two distinct events, either of which might lead to a NOTNEWS/BLP1E argument. The combination does not. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I assume that the two distinct events you were referring to are "being a criminal" and "winning the lottery". In that case, I'd argue that neither event by itself made this individual notable. Whilst the two together provoked some media interest for a while, a combination of non-notable events do not make a person notable. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete absolutely. This is a WP:TABLOID case. Slow news day on the Daily Mail, no ongoing coverage of this person is likely and no sources which are properly biographical and independent. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think it a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT, and all online sources that I could find are all traced back from tabloid journalism; this was interesting news for a while but a biography is of no historic value. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Coincidences as this one have hardly any encyclopedic value - Nabla (talk) 00:22, 4 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.