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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delroy Denton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Without references, this is about as blatant a WP:BLP violation as it's possible to get (the sole reference is to Black Flag, which I'd venture isn't a reliable source). Even if it is referenced, I'd question whether there is anything notable about this particular case.  – iridescent 22:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete – even if it is varifiable and referenced, Wikipedia is not a collection of new reports. Simply mentioned as a criminal doesn't pass notability guidlines. TheAE talk/sign 23:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 2 Major BBC references as well as Black Flag, and they were there when the article was nominated, though miscalled external links. " the first lawsuit to be brought against the Home Office and London police officials." From the nature of what's there , probably many more. His multi-year career clearly in not single event, and I think passes not news easily. DGG (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it has major effects on the Home Office and Metropolitan Police. Criminal acts are notable when they have lasting effect, and this has already led to a lawsuit (less common in Britain than the US) and it's likely to lead to new rules about informants. It needs fixing though. It appears to be heavily biased against law enforcement and the lawsuit is not the first one against these parties altogether, but "the first case where the police and Home Office were being sued for failure to protect members of the public from dangerous criminals." That leaves open the option of them being sued in the past for some other reason. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – After doing some more research, he has many mentions on Google News, with, from what I can see, enough media coverage for notability. TheAE talk/sign 00:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is far from neutral, but the subject is notable [1] [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoc2400 (talk • contribs) 09:51, April 30, 2009
• Keep. Notable. BBC reported it. WP:Deadline; article will eventually be improved. -Moritheil (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep per coverage of multiple criminal acts in multiple reliable sources. He's a creep, but he meets inclusion criteria. Send the article to WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 2 May 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.