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.
Delete per WP:BIO, I do not see the reason of having this person. Jeff503 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Question I'd like to thank whoever expanded it, but still have the question in the back of my mind, do we include every criminal, or was this really a huge incident?
No, we don't necessarily include every criminal, but according to WP:BIO we do include anyone who has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. This person has had four separate news reports, in the Times, Guardian and BBC, written about him. Therefore he automatically passes WP:BIO. If he had defecated in 22 trains and it hadn't appeared in the news, or had appeared only in the local newspaper, then he wouldn't be notable. Walton monarchist89 09:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Defecating in trains does not make you pass WP:BIO -- lucasbfrtalk 12:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - four separate news reports counts as multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, per WP:BIO. The person may not seem notable, but he passes WP guidelines. Walton monarchist89 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Almost empty article describing a non-notable person. A very poor article. If you want to keep it, ask "How can the article be expanded?" Maybe when he also defecates in a bus that could be added? (That's sarcasm!) Robinson weijman 13:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article has now been expanded (by me). There's plenty more information out there as well, if anyone wants to look it up and add it to the article. Walton monarchist89 15:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The version recently updated by Walton monarchist89 is fine. This person clearly passes WP:BIO. In fact looking at the previous version, that had enough in it to assert the notability of this person. Just because an article is in need of improvement doesn't mean that the subject is not notable. Should this article have been tagged for cleanup or improvement rather than AfD? Jules1975 15:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Correct me if I am wrong, but the various articles are all describing a single event (OK, several instances, but the story was mentioned once in the media). Therefore I still do not think this individual meets the Notability criteria. But maybe this is because I have an "outside of the UK" perspective? Those living in the UK may consider it more newsworthy. Robinson weijman 15:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's done one thing (defecate on trains) many times. I (based in the UK!) think he's done enough (as it were) to be notable. Having read WP:BIO again I can't see any requirement that a notable person has to be notable for more than one reason, they just have to be notable. Jules1975 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as far as I can read wiki guidelines both WP:BIO and WP:V have been satisfied. It is a question of debate whether being noted (or notorious) for asocial behavior is enough to warrant an inclusion in an encyclopedia, but as it stands it meets the rules Alf photoman 21:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete person being hunted for defaecation and desecration, a horribly gross (vulgar) crime but misdemeanour. We've deleted articles on people who have had coverage for repeatedly getting arrested for wandering around the streets naked, and this is on about the same level. The references supplied are covered by the "one coverage" rule, whereas it actually requires multiple coverage to pass WP:BIO (The pirate king cites BBC article as its source). Ohconfucius 06:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable minor criminal. As an aside, Wkipedia really needs a guideline explaining the difference between newsworthy and notable. Nuttah68 16:22, 26 February 2007 (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.