- 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. No prejudice towards redirection or mentions in appropriate articles. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Gauntlett
- Daniel Gauntlett ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think anybody can seriously argue that this person is/was in any way notable, even in his death. The event (i.e. his demise) may be notable, but that is unproven. An Early Day Motion and a few minor soundbites exchanged between the sponsoring MP and a poverty NGO are not sufficient to make for notability, IMHO. Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Be prepared for a surprise; I'm about to seriously argue that this person, or rather his death, was notable. (as has been suggested by User:Norden1990, I think the article needs to change to Death of Daniel Gauntlett; I'll do that when the AfD has concluded to avoid confusion). With reference to Wikipedia:Notability_(people) his death and the discussion around it was "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" for the national newspaper The Guardian, the UK magazine The New Statesman, Vice (magazine) in the USA, and substantial coverage by two regional papers (as referenced in the article). As noted, an MP involved was moved to comment on the death, as well as significant comment in blogs and NGO websites. His death is of ongoing interest with LASPO legislation (see articles). So...I hope changing the article to be about the event, rather than the person, would cover your issues? PhilMacD ( talk) 11:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- If, as has been suggested above by PhilMacD, this article is renamed Death of Daniel Gauntlett, I believe it will be an extremely important document, not just for future generations, but for many people in Britain today.
The decisions made by neighbours and the police and Daniel Gauntlett himself were all affected by laws we are all governed by. Those people's choices all serve to raise serious questions about our priorities today. According to all the news reports, Daniel Gauntlett was told by the police not to break into the derelict, condemned house. He chose to obey those instructions and instead slept outside in -2°C temperature exacerbated by wind chill. As a result he died.
Furthermore, again according to the news reports, neigbours called the police and reported his presence at the house. Had they not called the police and offered him shelter, some food and a warm drink and a dry blanket instead, again, maybe he might have survived that night.
All these questions are extremely difficult to answer, but they are at the core of what British society is about in the second decade of the 21st Century. David Cameron says he believes in a "Big Society" and that "We're all in it together". If he's sincere, why was Daniel Gauntlett allowed to be left out in the freezing night to die?
This is the debate opened up by the death of Daniel Gauntlett. If we are all in it together, who killed Daniel Gauntlett? Now I'm going to surprise you. I did - because I voted Conservative. I believed David Cameron was sincere. I believed David Cameron's Big Society included people like Daniel Gauntlett. I believed "all" meant ALL, not just those with a roof over their heads.
On 2nd March 2013 Mark McGowan posted this tribute to Daniel Gauntlett < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb07UL3olGs> It has been viewed 14,570 times
On 11th May 2013, three years after David Cameron became Prime Minister, just before I faced the repossession of my home, meaning I would become homeless, I posted this version of Mark McGowan's video tribute to Daniel Gauntlett < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I54-ZPd9tV8> A few weeks later I received a very emotional message from Daniel Gauntelett's daughter, thanking me for posting the video. I was able to tell her that her father’s story helped inspire me to fight to keep my home. And I did. I was lucky.
This is just one example of how Daniel Gauntelett’s death has had a positive effect.
Daniel Gauntlett was a real human being. His passing was a tragedy. It has affected many many people, most of whom never met him. Daniel Gauntlett's death represents one of the most fundamental issues facing British people today, one which after being Prime Minister for over three years, David Cameron has not even begun to address. If we can remember people who die in foreign wars, we can surely remember one who died equally needlessly as a result of how society obeys rules, regardless of the consequences to those who, for whatever reason are not counted as part of the "Big Society". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModerateFKR ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The topic as given clearly non-notable, a news story that a homeless person died. However the larger story might be notable as Death of Daniel Gauntlett though I think current coverage at Anti-Squatting Law is probably enough. Creating a standalone article on this topic has a WP:NOTADVOCATE air about it reinforced by comments above. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 06:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would argue it either needs to be kept, or needs a big chunk of further coverage in the Legal_Aid,_Sentencing_and_Punishment_of_Offenders_Act_2012 article, but I think there's enough information to make it an article in itself, and addition of the information to the LASPO article in itself could sway that article in a WP:SOAPBOX way. In summary; the information should be somewhere, and as ModerateFKR shows, it contains important issues, but the article and its existence (I think) is WP:NPOV. PhilMacD ( talk) 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete -- Squatting in residential premises was a problem primarily (though not exclusively) in London. Once squatters got into a house it was very difficult to remove them, and by the time they were removed, the propery would often have eben damaged. Effectively, the squatters are stealing a home. Keeping a habitable house empty without a good reason is certainly wrong, but Local Authorities have powers to bring unoccupied property into use; with the ultimaate sanction of Compulsory Purchase. I heard on the radio of the case of a couple who had bought a house to renovate it and move into it; the squatters decided they wanted it; when they were evicted, the renovations had to be started again. The MP's case seems to ahve been that if the Act had not prevented Daniel squatting, he might not have died of exposure. An Early Day Motion is a sort of petition among MPs: they are rarely even debated. This case was no doubt being used by an opponent of the Act in support of his case against it, but this is a splinter off a splinter of political debate. I do not think this article should be kept unless the case starts getting regularly quoted. If kept it should be [Death of Daniel Gauntlett]]. Peterkingiron ( talk) 09:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Since the article was created Vice (magazine) and The Independent have quoted the case. I think we have to watch for POV overlap here; the debate over whether squatting is right or wrong shouldn't impinge on whether an article should be kept on Wikipedia. PhilMacD ( talk) 13:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Rename -- The event is notable, not the man, and I would support a rename and a change in the direction of the article to consider the event and surrounding circumstances. There seems to be enough information to separate it from the Anti-Squatting Law article, and therefore should be distinct. Jack ( talk) 19:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep and rename -- Per Jackhynes. A homeless man isn't notable enough to deserve a page named after him. Instead, we are waiting for valuable expansion without undue weight. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - the death of one homeless person is by no means notable. In large cities this probably happens on a daily basis. Otherwise we'll have an article for every car accident, suicide, etc. that gets reported in media. - Zanhe ( talk) 17:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect Any useful information is already contained within the article for Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Outside of that context, even the event he's linked to isn't particularly notable in and of itself, it's the specific legislation that's notable. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 05:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Merge to Homelessness in the United Kingdom. Gauntlett's death was senseless and awful, but WP:BIO1E would seem to apply. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:00, 20 October 2013 (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 delete. No prejudice towards redirection or mentions in appropriate articles. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Gauntlett
- Daniel Gauntlett ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think anybody can seriously argue that this person is/was in any way notable, even in his death. The event (i.e. his demise) may be notable, but that is unproven. An Early Day Motion and a few minor soundbites exchanged between the sponsoring MP and a poverty NGO are not sufficient to make for notability, IMHO. Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Be prepared for a surprise; I'm about to seriously argue that this person, or rather his death, was notable. (as has been suggested by User:Norden1990, I think the article needs to change to Death of Daniel Gauntlett; I'll do that when the AfD has concluded to avoid confusion). With reference to Wikipedia:Notability_(people) his death and the discussion around it was "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" for the national newspaper The Guardian, the UK magazine The New Statesman, Vice (magazine) in the USA, and substantial coverage by two regional papers (as referenced in the article). As noted, an MP involved was moved to comment on the death, as well as significant comment in blogs and NGO websites. His death is of ongoing interest with LASPO legislation (see articles). So...I hope changing the article to be about the event, rather than the person, would cover your issues? PhilMacD ( talk) 11:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- If, as has been suggested above by PhilMacD, this article is renamed Death of Daniel Gauntlett, I believe it will be an extremely important document, not just for future generations, but for many people in Britain today.
The decisions made by neighbours and the police and Daniel Gauntlett himself were all affected by laws we are all governed by. Those people's choices all serve to raise serious questions about our priorities today. According to all the news reports, Daniel Gauntlett was told by the police not to break into the derelict, condemned house. He chose to obey those instructions and instead slept outside in -2°C temperature exacerbated by wind chill. As a result he died.
Furthermore, again according to the news reports, neigbours called the police and reported his presence at the house. Had they not called the police and offered him shelter, some food and a warm drink and a dry blanket instead, again, maybe he might have survived that night.
All these questions are extremely difficult to answer, but they are at the core of what British society is about in the second decade of the 21st Century. David Cameron says he believes in a "Big Society" and that "We're all in it together". If he's sincere, why was Daniel Gauntlett allowed to be left out in the freezing night to die?
This is the debate opened up by the death of Daniel Gauntlett. If we are all in it together, who killed Daniel Gauntlett? Now I'm going to surprise you. I did - because I voted Conservative. I believed David Cameron was sincere. I believed David Cameron's Big Society included people like Daniel Gauntlett. I believed "all" meant ALL, not just those with a roof over their heads.
On 2nd March 2013 Mark McGowan posted this tribute to Daniel Gauntlett < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb07UL3olGs> It has been viewed 14,570 times
On 11th May 2013, three years after David Cameron became Prime Minister, just before I faced the repossession of my home, meaning I would become homeless, I posted this version of Mark McGowan's video tribute to Daniel Gauntlett < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I54-ZPd9tV8> A few weeks later I received a very emotional message from Daniel Gauntelett's daughter, thanking me for posting the video. I was able to tell her that her father’s story helped inspire me to fight to keep my home. And I did. I was lucky.
This is just one example of how Daniel Gauntelett’s death has had a positive effect.
Daniel Gauntlett was a real human being. His passing was a tragedy. It has affected many many people, most of whom never met him. Daniel Gauntlett's death represents one of the most fundamental issues facing British people today, one which after being Prime Minister for over three years, David Cameron has not even begun to address. If we can remember people who die in foreign wars, we can surely remember one who died equally needlessly as a result of how society obeys rules, regardless of the consequences to those who, for whatever reason are not counted as part of the "Big Society". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModerateFKR ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The topic as given clearly non-notable, a news story that a homeless person died. However the larger story might be notable as Death of Daniel Gauntlett though I think current coverage at Anti-Squatting Law is probably enough. Creating a standalone article on this topic has a WP:NOTADVOCATE air about it reinforced by comments above. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 06:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would argue it either needs to be kept, or needs a big chunk of further coverage in the Legal_Aid,_Sentencing_and_Punishment_of_Offenders_Act_2012 article, but I think there's enough information to make it an article in itself, and addition of the information to the LASPO article in itself could sway that article in a WP:SOAPBOX way. In summary; the information should be somewhere, and as ModerateFKR shows, it contains important issues, but the article and its existence (I think) is WP:NPOV. PhilMacD ( talk) 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete -- Squatting in residential premises was a problem primarily (though not exclusively) in London. Once squatters got into a house it was very difficult to remove them, and by the time they were removed, the propery would often have eben damaged. Effectively, the squatters are stealing a home. Keeping a habitable house empty without a good reason is certainly wrong, but Local Authorities have powers to bring unoccupied property into use; with the ultimaate sanction of Compulsory Purchase. I heard on the radio of the case of a couple who had bought a house to renovate it and move into it; the squatters decided they wanted it; when they were evicted, the renovations had to be started again. The MP's case seems to ahve been that if the Act had not prevented Daniel squatting, he might not have died of exposure. An Early Day Motion is a sort of petition among MPs: they are rarely even debated. This case was no doubt being used by an opponent of the Act in support of his case against it, but this is a splinter off a splinter of political debate. I do not think this article should be kept unless the case starts getting regularly quoted. If kept it should be [Death of Daniel Gauntlett]]. Peterkingiron ( talk) 09:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Since the article was created Vice (magazine) and The Independent have quoted the case. I think we have to watch for POV overlap here; the debate over whether squatting is right or wrong shouldn't impinge on whether an article should be kept on Wikipedia. PhilMacD ( talk) 13:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Rename -- The event is notable, not the man, and I would support a rename and a change in the direction of the article to consider the event and surrounding circumstances. There seems to be enough information to separate it from the Anti-Squatting Law article, and therefore should be distinct. Jack ( talk) 19:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep and rename -- Per Jackhynes. A homeless man isn't notable enough to deserve a page named after him. Instead, we are waiting for valuable expansion without undue weight. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - the death of one homeless person is by no means notable. In large cities this probably happens on a daily basis. Otherwise we'll have an article for every car accident, suicide, etc. that gets reported in media. - Zanhe ( talk) 17:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect Any useful information is already contained within the article for Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Outside of that context, even the event he's linked to isn't particularly notable in and of itself, it's the specific legislation that's notable. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 05:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Merge to Homelessness in the United Kingdom. Gauntlett's death was senseless and awful, but WP:BIO1E would seem to apply. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:00, 20 October 2013 (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.