Deletion of Christopher Tappin

Comment: In the great scheme of things, I don't know why there is a need to keep this article when so many other "news" stories are regularly deleted per se. Please could an admin delete or redirect it article because it violates numerous Wikipedia guidelines about one-off news events which are not notable in the great scheme of things (irrespective of the number of contemporaneous references available). (Maybe its title could become a redirect to the article on Arms trafficking or Extradition Act 2003|extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom). I sincerely don't think future generations are going to thank us for keeping this story? Permit me, but using the same logic shown by the editor who removed my initial deletion request on the grounds that there were enough sources to make it , then that should mean when any celebrity who does anything "scandalous" and get reams of column inches given to it, that would allow the incident/event to have its own article. Where would the mediocrity end? In Tappin's case, the story was a media moment about a crooked businessman who bemoaned the fact he was not immune to extradition to the United States from the UK. But extraditions happen every day that never make the news - this case is no exception. There does not seem to be any case why Tappin should be any different! —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)