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. Wifione ^Message 14:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lawless

[edit]

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

The second Canadian World War I soldier "identified posthumously by forensic facial reconstruction and isotopes", not even the first. This is a pretty weak distinction, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can't argue with the deletion assertion above. I've taken the liberty of improving one of the sources, which was merely reprinted without attribution from The Telegram. Certainly RS, certainly significant and directly detailing. I'm neutral right now, but seeing the CBC and Telegram coverage, I'm almost inclined to a keep. BusterD (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 14:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a boatload of material on this subject (Google search for "Private Thomas Lawless"), because of the technology used to identify. (ex: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) BusterD (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; alternatively, merge into more general topic if one exists.
Note the trivial level of coverage of anything about Lawless pre-2003. This looks like a case of someone clearly "notable for only one event" - in this case, their identification after death. The guideline here is to write about the event, not the person, but it's unlikely an article about the identification and reburial would be something we'd consider appropriate. The best thing to do here would be to mention Lawless in the context of an article on retrospective identification of WWI soldiers, but I don't know if we have anything like this to merge it into. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement. I can't seem to find any significant article on Wikipedia about identification of remains (outside mentions in autopsy and cadaver). The vast number of sources (almost 40,000 ghits in this one particular case) leads me to believe we should have some such article. The 9/11 article reports that remains identification is still ongoing for about 1,800 victims. Seems an important topic not covered here. BusterD (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic identification and body identification are both sadly underdeveloped. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see either one of those linked at autopsy or cadaver, so thanks for the links. It's entirely likely this subject isn't notable enough for inclusion, but some of the sourcing definitely belongs somewhere, so these two give me suitable targets. Forensic facial reconstruction is another likely target. BusterD (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I agree with Andrew Gray's comments above as well. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2012 (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.