Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Edmonds (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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Edmonds

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

He was only known for a single event. Any useful information could be moved to the article on the corporation he sued. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even back in 2005 at the height of inclusionist power on Wikipedia this article was deleted. With more stringent inclusion standards now there is even less reason to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the 2005 discussion was about a different person with the same name, so it's irrelevant to whether this should be kept or deleted now. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability claim here just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a person who's earned permanent coverage in an encyclopedia by his own accomplishments. In theory, our article about lottery fraud could be expanded to include content about this particular variant (it currently covers only the "advance-fee e-mail spam" version, while not even touching on the "retailer theft" kind), which could thus briefly mention his case as an example of it — and there's already a bit about the case in Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation itself as it is — but none of this is a reason why a victim of this type of fraud would warrant a standalone biography of him as a person. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to this content being merged into the lottery fraud article, or the OLC one. DS (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2019 (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.