Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel A. Charles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coredesat (talk | contribs) at 02:45, 18 April 2007 (→[[Samuel A. Charles]]: close, delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:45, 18 April 2007 by Coredesat (talk | contribs) (→[[Samuel A. Charles]]: close, delete)
- 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. --Coredesat 02:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel A. Charles
- Samuel A. Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- Delete: Unreferenced article about a murdered police officer. Was tagged for speedy delete for quite a while. The hangon comment on the talk page claims that references are difficult to find because of the time since the crime. I wanted to bring it here to see if anyone can find anything to save this. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. In any case, it's such a specifically regional piece of news, unlikely to have hit internatioanl press, that local paper archives or library would be more likely to come up with the details. I'll suggest this. Tearlach 02:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete police officers, soldiers etc unfortunately die in the line of duty all the time & there's nothing to indicate anything unusual about this one other than it happened on an island. If there are sources to indicate anything above-and-beyond, they'll presumbly be in Dutch so I'm not in a position to dig them out. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Tearlach. Kntrabssi 14:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. That references might be difficult to find only underlines the premise that the subject, is, in fact, non-notable. RGTraynor 14:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sad story, but no assertion of notability and a complete lack of referencees.
'Retain' for reasons laid out in extensive argumentative piece supporting Ms. Charles' argument of notable firsts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Che's girl (talk • contribs) — Che's girl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 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.