Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Gunther

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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Gunther

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

I don't feel that this person is notable. Fails WP:SOLDIER - does being mentioned in a book make him notable enough? Gbawden (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior NCO. No significant awards. Just a bit of minor controversy surrounding his death. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. I am surprised this was not deleted years ago. EricSerge (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough information. Only one book mention
KEEP. Actually mentioned in a number of books and magazines due to timing of the incident and the controversial nature of military's lack of transparency. Canuckle (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Canuckle. There is adequate sourcing to support WP:BASIC.- Mr X 15:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could article be reframed as Death of Daniel Gunther rather than biography? Canuckle (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It would be difficult to ask for much more in terms of sources here... there are inline citations, good ones, for practically every sentence. You want to be able to look up this sort of information here, this is what Wikipedia was made for. Not every article can be the kind of general nouns you find in a dictionary like "airplane" or "quantum mechanics."Christopher Lotito (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG or even SOLDIER. Doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On one had there is a bunch of assertions that this passes the GNG and on the other that it doesn't. To be clear mentions doesn't cut it because GNG requires detailed sourcing but milage on that varies. I think some commentary about the depth of detail of the sourcing will help the closing admin decide where to go on this; Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. He is notable for his death, which has been the subject of academic study. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. It's hard to find now, but his death got significant media coverage at the time. Some examples are: "Canadian soldier killed just after truce deadline in Bosnia Death may again raise questions about suitability of lightly armoured personnel carriers in combat zones." Globe & Mail [Toronto, Canada] 19 June 1993: A12.; "CANADA WATCH Quebec peacekeeper remembered." Globe & Mail [Toronto, Canada] 24 June 1993: A4. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided by Tchaliburton suffice. Haven't considered all the previous discussion. --do ncr am 14:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone comes up with solid secondary sources. Three of Tchaliburton's links go to sources such as Esprit de Corps (magazine), which judging by its article is a popular magazine written largely by one guy with some outside contributors: it's basically a self-published source. The exceptions are a book published by the same guy (not a prominent publisher with high reputation) and one thing by Saturday Night (magazine), which likewise is a popular magazine, not the type of thing on which encyclopedia articles are written. News coverage at the time of his death, being written at the time of his death, is by definition a primary source, not a secondary source. I'm willing to change my mind if given solid secondary sourcing, but none has yet been presented. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't like the article the way it sits, but that's not the issue. The question is whether this is a GNG pass or a One Event, Not News fail... My sense is that it is the former, based on the lasting public and government reaction to his death. Piece needs to be either rewritten as a biography or retitled as a "Death of" piece. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

welcome your feedback and comments. I rewrote the entire article two times and added number of sources since it was nominated. Am open to suggested improvements. thanks Canuckle (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2014 (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.