Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Francis Burke
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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Martin Francis Burke
Obituary for a detective. "One of the best homicide detectives in Chicago's history" is unsourced claim of notability. WP:NOT a memorial. Delete. Kusma (討論) 15:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like a decent guy from the article, but I'm afraid I have to say delete for the same reasons. If someone wishes to make a better case for notability, I'm willing to reconsider it. Fourohfour 15:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP not a memorial Ruby 16:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is a work in progress. This was not just a decent guy, he is a Chicago Legend and as the research moves along this will become clear. Do not delete, articles such as these need to grow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rschak (talk • contribs) .
- You don't understand. If the research has been done proving that he is a Chicago Legend, then by all means cite that research and we may keep the article. But if you are in the middle of ongoing research and are accumilating it on this article, then it has to go. Ruby 17:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete can't find on cited newspaper's web site or google, so how legendary was he? There was a Chief Martin Burke there in the 1800's though. Being a good cop is not really enough notability. If research shows real verifiable notability (Wyatt Earp notability) then maybe re-submit (though if fame hasn't been uncovered yet I wonder if it will be later). Weregerbil 17:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
What in the world makes Google the all knowing authority on anything and being a good cop is worth som ething when people like you exist under their blanket of protection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.79.193.120 (talk • contribs) .
-
- Google is simply a means to an end; it happens to be a good way to *find* information on a certain subject. If someone creates an article with a name like "Tom McSchlumberger" and says he's a famous singer, but Google doesn't come up with a single result for the name, it's a fair bet the guy's not really that famous. There is a policy of no original research on Wikipedia, so that although a Wikipedia article could (and should) distill information available (and verifiable) elsewhere, it should not be the original source o finformation. 195.92.168.176 20:05, 4 February 2006 (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.
