Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Volkers

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 and redirect to

WP:UNDUE and while the consensus in this debate isn't numerically huge, considering the BLP implications, not relisting and not soft-deleting. Daniel (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Update: Redirect deleted as, subsequent to this AfD closing, the name of the person has been removed from the target article. Daniel (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Volkers

[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)

Per

WP:CRIMINAL. The subject has not been convicted by a court of law and a judge ordered the charges to be permanently stayed in March 2020 [1]. The subject is not a public figure, and there is no other information that would remain if the crime-related material were to be removed. DanCherek (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given Volkers was the coach of a number of major Australian swimming stars is there a broader article his name can be redirected to as per
WP:ATD? Deus et lex (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
- Perhaps
  WP:BLPCRIME: editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured, and if he's removed from that section, he's not in the rest of the article. I checked other articles that mention Volkers, but they are just individual athletes he has coached, his successor, a case prosecutor, and an awards table, so not particularly good redirect targets. DanCherek (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Comment - Thanks - I'd be comfortable for a redirect to Swimming Australia but with no merged content to avoid violating WP:BLPCRIME. Deus et lex (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No redirect The only mentions of
WP:UNDUE) at the prosecutor's article Margaret Cunneen#Notable cases. In the Samantha Riley article it mentions without citation "She had failed a drug test, and was only exonerated after her coach Scott Volkers admitted to giving her a headache tablet which contained the banned substance." In the Australian Sport Awards article it mentions in a table, his 1995 "Coach of the Year" award. There does not appear to be a viable target for any redirect. Overall, if he is not notable, aside from the allegations, then the article should be deleted; it doesn't seem that such deletion would cause any loss of information, outside of the allegations. Also, per the nominator's (@DanCherek:) rationale, the section Notable cases in the Margaret Cunneen article, and the mentions in the Swimming Australia article should be cleaned up. --Bejnar (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2021 (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.