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, consensus is that any notability comes from one event and is insufficient for a biography. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Doyle

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:ONEEVENT. Sex offender who worked for US Department of Homeland Security. Minor kerfuffle at time, no lasting impact. Note that section with "political impact" was recently removed as insignificant. Without this, we probably have no reason for the article. Other than the coincidence of his job (sex offenders come from all walks of life), this isn't a notable crime (and it was victimless as well). Dhartung | Talk 12:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The crime may not have been so coincidental. He claimed in the police interview and in the plea negotiations (referenced in the article) that he did it out of some sort of power tripping rather than an attempt to have sex with the supposed 14 year old girl, and sent her a photo of him with his Homeland Security ID visible. Had he been a small town dog catcher, he would not have had the power base to operate from. Undecided whether this news story rises to encyclopedic quality. It had substantial coverage from arrest to sentencing in 2006, but little coverage since and few societal effects or larger implications. Edison (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A decidedly minor controversy, to be certain, but one that did generate a great deal of attention when it took place. The notability is admittedly borderline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoleetage (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete not notable, everything seems notable at the time but few topics stand the test of time, setting that as a reason to keep invites and overwhelming number of minor articles (Flash Flood of 4 January, Dallas Tx). Additionally while I have no sympathy for this guy, are we going to start recording articles on other criminals who have no other notarity?, Is there a lower limit to the noteworthiness of criminality? Personally I feel this sets a bad precedent and possibly opens up the floodgates of slanderous and untrue articles under the guise of local issues and encyclopedic protectionism. --Lemmey talk 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete I think there actually IS a proposal to change the notability requirements for criminals, making some criminal acts confer notability to the actor. It isn't approved and I don't think it would include this guy, but if you have thoughts on it you may find it Here. Actually, from reading it, it is dormant and were it revived it would probably provide grounds to remove this guy. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor sex offender, with appropriately minor significance--not enough for an article. DGG (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TABLOID. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 30 April 2008 (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.