Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Todd (policeman)

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Todd (policeman)

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

Seems only notable for a single event, and falls under WP:BLP1E. Singularity42 (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The author has pointed out on the article's talk page that Todd may be in the process of acquiring some additional notability, but in my opinion this promotes it to at most BLP1½E. Please note the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nidal Malik Hasan concerning the article about the alleged shooter. Favonian (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add to main article instead, there is little else to say about this person at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The man he shot is notable, Todd himself is not. Grsz¹¹ 19:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Speedy delete Just a cop doing his duty. Nothing notable here. Ronnotel (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a sad fact of life; the criminal and his actions are often notable, while the hero just doing his job is not. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Let's respect this man's privacy per WP:BLP. There's barely anything verifiable from reliable sources that we can build a whole article out of. Leave him alone. ~YellowFives 20:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Fort Hood shooting. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to say this, but yes, this is what a cop is supposed to do. This officer is absolutely non-notable except for one thing, helping to take down Nidal. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I feel the necessity of adding in that this stub should not be "salted". This is because more needs to be investigated, and I am sure will be, about why the Army reported false information. The New York Times may have more to say on this. The possibility of bare notability comes not from the fact that Todd shot Nidal, but that the Army falsely reported that he had nothing to do with it. I would also not be so sure that this is a snow close. My mind is open, and would like to see more of a discussion. The inability of the military to say who shot the shooter casts doubt on their identification of the shooter. This could be used for the defense as reasonable doubt. Bearian (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It might also be noted, by way of explanation (and as may be relevant in light of wp:blp), that "[i]n an interview on Wednesday, Sergeant Todd’s wife, Lisa, said he had asked the Army to protect his identity in the immediate aftermath of the shootings." [1] --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it and I understand. Thanks for the heads up. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SNOW close this one after it's open for at least 12 hours or so. It's possible Todd will become notable eventually if his actions receive more and more coverage and result in him writing a book or the like, but for now this is a very clear BLP1E delete. There was no agreement about creating the article in the first place and the consensus here seems pretty clear, so an admin should feel free to close this as delete without waiting the full 7 days. We need to get a handle on these insta-bio articles created because of a couple of news stories, and a speedy close of this AfD helps us do that. A redirect can and probably should be created that points to some portion of the Fort Hood shooting article, but there's nothing in this article history that needs to be merged so it should be deleted prior to that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the chief question is if the subject of the article meets WP:NN, there are presently 779 instances of news articles with a mention of the subject that is being proposed to be deleted. Therefore, per WP:BIO
If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
the subject meets the second part of the quoted part of the guideline. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it notable that the top result in those news search goes into the following detail about the subject: "Little information was available about Senior Sgt. Mark Todd". We cannot expect a biography from this material. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect nobody tried to redirect the article to Fort Hood shooting before bringing it here. No question this one falls within WP:BLP1E Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E clearly applies.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. I agree with many people who have commented in various discussions that this policy is often quoted misappropriately, but that shouldn't stop us applying it when it is appropriate. I don't see any point in a redirect from a title with a disambiguator, but there may possibly be an argument for a link from the disambiguation page to Fort Hood shooting, although I don't really see that helps with navigation (which is the point of disambiguation pages) because the only reason that anyone would be looking up information on the subject would be that they have already seen the name in the context of this incident. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 13 November 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.