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. - but the close paraphrasing needs to be looked at, and the article title probably isn't the best either Black Kite (t) (c) 00:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ward[edit]

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

Subject only notable for one event per WP:BIO. Ignorant Armies^?! 13:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on the basis of his death has been in effect an extended media and political issue in Western Australia long after he has died - the ramifications from the death of the individual has affected prisoner custody issues in general - the death of mr ward and subsequent issues constitutes a notable ongoing series of events that more or less by-pass any BIO issue IMHO - Satu Suro 13:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 13:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone who was an international representative in some sort of cultural exchange, and who was an expert in crafts, aboriginal hunting or in native wildlife might well have gained significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, which is what Wikipedia looks for in determining the notability of an individual. Satisfaction of the relevant guideline, WP:BIO seems weak, with just two newspaper articles, by the same author. Where is the "extended media coverage?" The inquest or other official primary sources do not establish notability, nor do blogs. If it is a "political issue," is there reliable sourcing that his death had significant societal effects, such as laws passed or changed, or changed government policies? Edison (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excessively close paraphrasing The article is largely copied, with direct copying or unacceptably close paraphrasing, from the Inquest report, which is listed at the bottom of the article as a reference, but which lacks quotation marks or even inline citation in the article. The directly copied content includes "He was a well known dancer and speaker and created works in glass including the art glass series “The Seven Seals of the Ngaanyatjarra Lands.”There are also several excessively close paraphrases, with no citation or attribution. This would have to be corrected if the article were kept. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If the article were kept, and if the inquest report is not copyrighted, then sections could be directly quoted with citation, or it could be attributed in text as "The inquest report said:---" One of the press references is a deadlink, and lacks date of publication, so it fails as a reference.Edison (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being someone else's work without adequate citation, even if it is from a government report, and for lack of multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, needed to satisfy WP:BIO, and per WP:ONEVENT. Edison (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst SatuSuro is correct in that his death has been the subject of prolonged media & political coverage as an individual (when he was alive) his notability is questionable. Looking at similar situations under Aboriginal deaths in custody it would appear that the incident is notable however the individual is not. The article if it is kept should be renamed to Ian Ward rather than Mr Ward. Dan arndt (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article as I found it - I would put up for Afd myself - It was grossly short of correct referencing and citing - have since added some - the prolonged issues (2009 - 2011) of the death are now a bit clearer, and it should be more obvious that the death had significance - so there is no scope anymore to claim one event - that would a misreading of the article - the death became an issue in which the government moved slowly and eventually met the justice required also I disgree with previous comment - the individual (as an elder) was a significant member of the community, and his life and death had impact on the community - and Western Australia state politics if one sees some of the references cited Satu Suro 08:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If he's only notable for his death, perhaps the article should be moved to Death of Mr Ward? Jenks24 (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Deletion isnt the appropriate step at worst the informations should be merged but really he sufficiently notable to be kept though it should be at his fullname or at a dismabiguation of Ian Ward a very quick search reveals that his death was reported outside of Australia. While his death is the obvious media event and border line WP:ONE his death has had impact outside of the event itself. Gnan garra 14:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable event in Western Australian politics - I would however suggest a retitling to "Death in custody of Mr Ward". The use of "Mr" is in place of an Aboriginal name applied after death - see [1] Multiple reliable sources are available - it has been reported on the ABC [2] and been the subject of a one-hour investigation on one of the ABC's flagship current affairs programs [3], The Australian [4], The West Australian [5] and that's just a cursory look, it would be easy to find more as there's been plenty of stories over the 2008-2011 period. Some people here have commented on the content of the article, but deletion is based on notability. Its contents are a reason for improvement / editing, not deletion. Orderinchaos 21:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Ignorant Armies^?! 14:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable in aussie politics.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually it is.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both 'Just unencyclopedic' and 'Just pointing at a policy or guideline'." – quoted from WP:ITSNOTABLE (as above), which you may wish to read. Ignorant Armies^?! 10:43, 2 August 2011 (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.