Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Eurell

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. Article is indeed terrible, and while the consensus to keep is not very strong, neither is the consensus to delete. Will close as "no consensus", to give BabbaQ a chance to get this up at DYK. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Eurell

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

Wholly unsourced. Being a bent cop does not make a person notable (thankfully!). Candidate for speedy unless notoriety equates to notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So when does one become notable for Wikipedia?
There is a wiki page for Louis Eppolito and Stephen Caracappa
Another for Henry Hill,
Jon_Roberts,
Jimmy Burke do I need to go on?
There is a documentary on Eurell's life which is being adapted into a major motion picture by Sony.
I believe the page Ken Eurell is Wikipedia content.
A lot of these other pages should be deleted if that's the case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Bolton NYPD (talk • contribs)
Delete. Don't see the notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Notoriety != Significance. Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
WP:GNG"The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition"
How many outside sourcesare needed?
Variety - Sony wins film rights
Roger Ebert - the cop version of goodfellas
This is as notable as any other case cited above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Bolton NYPD (talk • contribs)

Comment: One problem with the article is that it does not provide sources that indicate that Eurell is notable. If you have such sources, you should add them to the article. But of the two sources you mention above, the first does not even mention Eurell, and the second mentions him in passing. Both articles are about the movie, neither about the man. I too once appeared in a commercial documentary. That doesn't make me notable. ubiquity (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep:WP:NTEMP, At best a one-event notoriety for a drug bust, but nothing else indicates notability. — Maile (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Weak Keep, to give the author and some mentor a chance to bring this up to at least a stub. — Maile (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joe Bolton NYPD, would you consider starting an article on the documentary? It looks [1] notable enough to have a page. This former officer/informant is mentioned in the Daily News article I just linked to. The page can discuss the officers who were doing drug deals, at least as far as reliable sources exist. If the movie [2] moves ahead, it it will accumulate enough sources to merit an article. (Since films can be announced, even optioned for major $$, without being produced, I advise you not to start that article until significant coverage exists.).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep The page is lousy. It desperately needs an editor. However, this rogue cop, turned informer, who then was portrayed in a documentary, and now may feature as a character in a major motion picture is WP notable because of the amount of coverage that comes up in a search. See links in my last comment, plus: [3], [4], [5], [6] there's lots more. Also, Eurell is far from shy, he seems to be trying to cash in on his notoriety [7]. In fact, he may actually be User:Joe Bolton NYPD. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember WP:BEFORE. Granted, this article was improperly formatted and had absolutely no sources. I'm not sure what the nom should have done. flagged it for a few days to see if the author could figure it out? Hook him up with a mentor? Perhaps point him to teh suggestions on his talk page about how to create an article? I may be out of line, and this , of course, appeared ot be an attack on a individual. But I'm not persuaded that blasting newbies with both barrels is the best way to grow Wikipedia. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:PERP criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E M Gregory. James500 (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely notable per WP:GNG. However article needs to be shaped up. However AfD is not a clean-up service. We dont nominate notable article for deletion simply because they are not in an OK condition at the moment. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for my !vote is that the subject is not notable. The only two references set forth above (and not in the article), only peripherally mention the subject and are not sufficient to support notability. Further, the subject does not meet either criteria set forth in WP:PERP. Much of the rationale set forth by some of the !votes above, are based more on invalid "other stuff exists" arguments.--Rpclod (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2015 (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.