Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyn Kirsch and Edward Anderton

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 per WP:BLP1E. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Kirsch and Edward Anderton

Per WP:BLP1E and lack of other notable activities. MBisanz ^talk 20:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sadly, theft of $120K isn't all that notable anymore. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. لenna vecia 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe rename & merge to the event. This was a major news story in parts of the United States....The sinking of the Titanic was also one event, but the event is surely notable. - Vartanza (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
You're comparing a $120k identity theft scheme to the sinking of the Titanic? There's something we refer to as "historical significance". They're not comparable. That said, "rename and merge"? There's no article to merge into. It's sort of a non-event. It could merely be renamed, but that brings us 'round full-circle. Not a notable event. لenna vecia 15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It might be one event - or series of events - but the crime spree was unusual, and they obviously figured largely in it. Lots and lots of coverage. Fences&Windows 22:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article but rename to focus on the crime itself rather than as a biography. The crime was covered internationally such as here and there is plenty of coverage for well over a year establishing the notability of the event. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything extraordinary about this crime, and looking through the refs I see little to establish this as a notable crime(s). Slow news week? WP:NOTNEWS etc. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, References show that this has no real temporal coverage, except reporting of 5 year sentence. So not notable and Wikipedia is not the news. Polargeo (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, at least I got to read the Rolling Stone article before this got deleted. Fences&Windows 22:38, 22 June 2009 (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.