Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwin Grech

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 Speedy deleted per WP:BLP1E by User:Orderinchaos. As another admin, I support this speedy deletion.. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin Grech

minor official notable for only one event, so failing BLP1E. Quantpole (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP 1E unless the event is notable and then it should be moved to that article title. But the event doesn't seem notable on first blush. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a news service and this individual is not notable — fails WP:BIO--AssegaiAli (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor public servant. Entirely non-notable. However, the event may be notable, but not this version of it. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person meets the basic criteria under WP:BIO and the event for which he is now famous for had the potential to force the resignation of a prime minister, easily satisfying the 'significance' criterion of 'People notable only for one event'. GhostWhoVotes (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please can you outline how it meets the basic criteria of WP:BIO? Quantpole (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable outside the event. The event may need an article, but not this public servant. florrie 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave People will be wanting to know about the guy and want a authoritative article. Charles Esson (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least for now, no more than WP:ONEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 00:04, 23 June
Retain. I came to Wikipedia looking for the Godwin Grech article. I was surprised not to find one, so I wrote one myself. He is the nost notable man in Australia at the moment, there are TV crews camped on his front lawn. He almost brought down the most popular PM in recent Australian history, now he is under criminal investigation. To suggest he is not notable is ridiculous. What's this "one event" business? Lee Harvey Oswald is notable for only one event. Is he "not notable"? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge. The man himself is not notable, the political affair that he is a major player in certainly is. The article almost completely deals with this affair. I would redirect from this page to an article on The OzCar Affair and move the body of this article to that page. Unless that article has already been started, in which case I would suggest merging in this information. The actual text contributed by Mr Toad is well written, well cited and should be retained, just not under a biographical article. Oska (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Utegate as that's what he's notable for. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Utegate - a silly article title but the correct place for this material. Grech has no notability outside the "Utegate" saga. He is a major player in that single event, though not the only one as it also heavily involves the Prime Minister, Treasurer and Opposition Leader. The relevant notability guideline states that "when an individual is significant for their role in a single event it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the indvidual, the event or both ... The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." This seems excellent advice - for the moment the key feature is the Utegate scandal itself and that seems a fine place for Wikipedia's article on this issue to be located. At present we know very little about Grech's role - we don't know if he wrote the email, we don't know if he sent it to a journalist, all we do know is he claims he got one from Rudd's office, the one found in Treasury was forged and he was questioned by police, and then his house got egged. Fascinating theatre but not notable in the absence of further material. If over time Grech assumes a notability outside of Utegate, or if his role in Utegate becomes so central as to eclipse Turnbull and Rudd's, then a separate article may be warranted. At present however, he has an undefined role in a single event accompanied by breathless media speculation over the course of a few days. To date a classic case of WP:ONEEVENT and best merged into the parent article on the scandal. Euryalus (talk) 03:23, 23 June 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.