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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn". Take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael P. Fay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable person started a canning incident, fails WP:BLP1E. Plus PROD consested. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - BLP1E doesn't apply where "the event is significant and the person's role in it is substantial". The definition of a "significant event" is at WP:EVENT, where it calls for the event to (a) meet the WP:N requirement for significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and (b) either be "a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance" or "have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group". Here there's no question that the article meets the WP:N coverage requirements, and by having a significant impact on US/Singapore relations it can be said to meet either or both of the additional requirements. Please note also that the purpose of BLP1E is typically not to decide whether an article on a topic should exist, but to decide whether an article on the individual should exist in addition or instead of an article on the event itself. As far as I'm aware there's no article on the event here so the question is moot. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• <ec>Keep but potentially move to the event per BLP1E. The coverage is over a fairly long period of time, involves direct action by an American and Singaporean head of state, and had such wide coverage that a lack of coverage would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. As a note, "michael fay singapore" gets 3500 Gnews hits. The coverage spans 94 to quite recently including 42 hits in the last 2 years. Not exactly a flash-in-the-pan. Hobit (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems to establish reasonable notability and (per above) involved two head of states including the US President. mauler90 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the footnotes and references on the page itself demonstrate this adequately. Uucp (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was huge news over a long period of time, and this article has twenty-eight refs spanning nearly a decade to demonstrate this. Fay was the subject of a significant diplomatic incident (and accompanying media circus) that continues to come up in the press to this day. Heather (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I cannot imagine how anyone can think this subject is not worthy of an article. Just look at the article and all the references. It produced a truly immense amount of publicity worldwide. It is by far the single most significant event that has ever brought Singapore to international attention in modern times. It generated very wide interest in many countries and provoked much debate in the USA about the treatment of crime. Who proposed this for deletion, and what on earth were they thinking of? Alarics (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn I guess the user who started to propose deletion on that article and thought that was not met under WP:BLP1E. He is much notable on Singaporean canning incident in 1993-1994. The article should not add prod to the article. It has many references on his arrest and return to the U.S. to live with his father and continued to change his new life. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 03:45, 19 April 2010 (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.