Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William L. Durkin (2nd nomination)

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. Wizardman 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William L. Durkin

Completing unfinished nom for SilkTork (talk · contribs). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC) (Incomplete Twinkle and EC) Contested merge to Howard_Hughes#Near-fatal_crash_of_the_XF-11. This was the subject of a keep AfD in 2006 which was before the WP:BIO1E guideline was written. Since 2006 the consensus has grown that articles on individuals known for only one event should be written only where the notability of the individual has grown larger than mere association with the event. Otherwise the individual should be written about within the article on the event itself. It is proper that Durkin gets a mention in the Howard Hughes article, however his life beyond that event has been rather ordinary. He gets very few mentions on a Google search, and those mentions, like this and this are as footnotes to the event. He is known for rescuing a notable man, but as notability is not inherited, consensus has been that that alone should not be reason enough for a standalone article. Remove and redirect to Howard_Hughes#Near-fatal_crash_of_the_XF-11}} SilkTork *^YES! 22:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. per thoughts on original AfD debate - "It is a good read, merits attention, and adds to the overall picture. Redirecting it to the Hughes page confuses the bold line between the two." Check-Six (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChangLimbang (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC) — ChangLimbang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete/Merge No independent notability. This is as clear an application of this criterion as possible.DGG (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable for historical self-evident reasons. Evidence is what the man did. Will be a solid link to the county and other articles. Luigibob (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As good as any other article... Felis Sapien (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, This about an act that occured over 50 years ago, it was discussed in 2006, at that time there was only the nomininator of the article that thought the article should be deleted. Nothing has changed in 2 years. Why waste our time with an article that was so well discussed two years ago? If it was a close vote or more then one person thought it should of been removed, ok lets bring it up again, but to bring it up for another Afd is in my humble opinion a waste of time. Callelinea (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2008 (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.