- 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
1993 Ramada Hotel drownings
- 1993 Ramada Hotel drownings ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep. This seems notable and as the event took place well before wikipedia was founded, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't really seem to apply as this article was written in 2011, 18 years after the event occurred which really doesn't seem newspapery to me. Furthermore, due to the three years of media coverage following the event, I'd say that it seems to be relatively notable. Snood1205 ( talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Wcquidditch's argument is persuasive: obviously there was ongoing news coverage, and from high-quality sources. Obviously some of the detail needed to be trimmed back -- I can't imagine what's pertinent to the subject about the number of siblings or that the father lost his job post-9/11 -- but I'm hardpressed to find merit in the nom's argument. If he objected to too much irrelevant biographical information, he could have trimmed that out, as I just did. Nor is there a single element of NOTNEWS that's violated here. Ravenswing 23:43, 22 June 2017 (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.
- 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
1993 Ramada Hotel drownings
- 1993 Ramada Hotel drownings ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep. This seems notable and as the event took place well before wikipedia was founded, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't really seem to apply as this article was written in 2011, 18 years after the event occurred which really doesn't seem newspapery to me. Furthermore, due to the three years of media coverage following the event, I'd say that it seems to be relatively notable. Snood1205 ( talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Wcquidditch's argument is persuasive: obviously there was ongoing news coverage, and from high-quality sources. Obviously some of the detail needed to be trimmed back -- I can't imagine what's pertinent to the subject about the number of siblings or that the father lost his job post-9/11 -- but I'm hardpressed to find merit in the nom's argument. If he objected to too much irrelevant biographical information, he could have trimmed that out, as I just did. Nor is there a single element of NOTNEWS that's violated here. Ravenswing 23:43, 22 June 2017 (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.