Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Sam Riddall

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. Event not satisfying, essentially, WP:PERSISTENCE. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sam Riddall

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable event, fails WP:GNG Jezhotwells (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unfortunate hit-and-run death but no lasting coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cant be denied that this hit and run recieved alot of press when it happened and also the events after the crash. Ofcourse the case dont recieved as much coverage when the case is closed but that doesnt mean that the previous coverage becomes insignificant. Also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per WP:EVENT and WP:PERSISTENCE. These guidelines trump WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it seems to have been covered widely at the time of the occurence, it doesn't warrent a wikipedia article. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A sad event, but one which has generated little interest or coverage except at the time of occurence, and which has had no lasting effect or significance. None of the principals are notable, and the event itself was, sad to say, not out of the ordinary, especially in terms of lasting impact. Does not meet WP:GNG. Just because something has value as a news story doesn't mean it has value as the subject of an encyclopedia article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I say lose it because it is a very sad event! 22dragon22burn (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the newspaper, and this doesn't seem to have aroused the interest of people who publish in stable media such as books and journals. Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The case has recived national covarage so an article on wikipedia can exists. All case recived much attention in the firsts day after the fact and less after one year.User:Lucifero4
Delete - nothing particularly historically notable about this story. Robofish (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.