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. Tone 19:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Saul

[edit]

It is verifiable from the sources that this person did murder someone, but notability is not shown, unless all murderers are notable by default. The WP:ONEVENT guideline advises against such articles. This is a local event, and sources are mainly the local newspaper. SilkTork *^YES! 19:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nom says, no clear notability is established, and per WP:ONEVENT, it's doubtful any ever will be. KaySL (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unless it was Princess Diana he killed, fails WP:ONEVENT. TheAE talk/sign 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/~~keep~~ (creator). The nom is based on the false premise that he's notable because he murdered someone. Actually, he's primarily notable for the fact that he escaped from detention 3 times in Vanuatu. His escapes led to major changes in the Vanuatuan penal system, including the country's only detention centre being transferred from civilian to military control. He's not notable because of the murder—it's for what happened afterwards. The majority of the article is about the arrests and escapes, so I thought I wrote it in a way that would demonstrate that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Adding more sourced material would establish notability for that. Is he the only person to escape that prison? Is 3 the most times anyone has escaped from there? And more about the changes in the penal system incited by his escapes. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 21:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree—my main point is not that the article is necessarily perfect, but that the original reason for deletion is flawed. It may well be appropriate to delete, but if we consider it let's at least consider the issues you raise, and not the "crime cruft"-type ones presented as the reasons for deletion, since they are a peripheral part of the article. If a rationale based on the article's real content were presented, I could even support deletion if it were convincing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the person is notable for escaping three times is not demonstrated by the sources. No source mentions three escapes, though there is awareness of two escapes after the second escape by the words "again" and "twice", though the local paper is (naturally) more interested in the bulk escape. The sources as presented indicate a possibility of an article on the Port Vila Correctional Service Centre which could mention the breakouts, as the most interesting aspect of this case is that the prison does seem rather lax in security. SilkTork *^YES! 16:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you said about an article about the facility perhaps being more appropriate. I'm fine with deletion—I know someone is writing an article on the Saul escapes and the prison; after it comes out I can re-assess what type of article (if any) would be most appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable common crime cruft.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 06:30, 26 January 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.