- Trayvon Martin (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The discussion was closed with a no-consensus closure reason, however I'm inclined to accept it, the discussion could have been re-listed, which it wasn't, but the deletion reasons are far from fetched, but actually matches Wikipedia's spirit and guideline. The subject is only notable for his circumstances, but the subject itself is not notable. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse On one side, this is a clear ONEEVENT situation. On the other, there was so much coverage of him, including his entire life, we've got plenty for an article on the person. Both are reasonable and numbers were close, so NC is a reasonable outcome. Hobit (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just note that
Mark WilyD is in the right here and ONEEVENT is a significant stretch. So keep would also have been a reasonable (and likely preferred) outcome, but no consensus is still within administrative discretion. Hobit (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close We are told above to "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process...". The initiator of this review says of the close that "I'm inclined to accept it...". We should therefore stop at that point. Warden (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it can be helpful sometimes to review an AFD even if the DRV nominator does not necessarily dispute the close. However WP:DRV does not include this as one of its purposes (nor something excluded from its purposes). When an article has been deleted it is no longer possible to discuss matters at its erstwhile talk page. In this case Talk:Trayvon Martin can be used to discuss how to proceed. To my mind the seeming request for deletion unnecessarily polarised the AFD discussion. The nominator surely intended some form of redirection/merge with Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Thincat (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I agree with Hobit. Thincat (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Hobit's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Since Trayvon Martin is no longer living, BLP1E or BIO1E does not apply. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - BLP1E apply to biography of living person, but WP:ONEEVENT applies to any notability regarding people, living or death, thus your argument is without unprecedent. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 13:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If Wikipedia has articles for Natalee Holloway, Elizabeth Smart and Nicole Brown Simpson (other crime victims), then I see no reasons for Trayvon Martin to be considered for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 15:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your rationale does not apply, Comparison with Natalee is not applicable, her disappearance has spawned a chain of events which are linked or not to her, the fact she went missing, the circumstances of her presumably death, the investigation, the possible suspects and any chance or her reappearance. Elizabeth Smart is an activist. Comparing with Nicole Brown's article is also unsuitable, the article is brief and has no trivial information whereas Travyon Martin's article is full of non encyclopedic content, there is also a chain of articles related to the subject, there is a controversial book by OJ Simpson which encompasses their story, there is a handful of theories regarding the cases, whereas Martyn's received notoriety for his racial aspect and misleading media reports, e.g.: Zimmerman is eligible for having an article because of its aftermath. The current article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 19:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Hobit. On one hand, we discourage articles on individuals notable for just one event. On the other, he was central to one of the major news stories of the year that got massive and sustained coverage by reliable sources. In this case I think the article adds to our coverage of the event and that the encyclopedia is better with it than without it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin here (I wasn't notified of this discussion, BTW): both sides had reasonably policy-based arguments and relatively even numbers. It is certainly true that most people notable for one event don't get an article, but in exceptional cases, they can. The question was, is this an example of an exceptional case that merits a separate article? I think that the participants were reasonably well divided on that question. Since it's a judgment that the community has to make, I didn't feel that I could close it one certain way without casting a WP:SUPERVOTE. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to Keep - people need to read policies before trying to apply them, rather than just being aware of the catchy word with the blue link. Yes, when all of the sources are about an event, rather than a person, the person should only be covered in the context of that event. A quick perusal of the sources show that ain't the case. Actually clicking WP:ONEEVENT shows that this kind of situation is explicitly not what ONEEVENT is about (but you'll have to read all the way to the second paragraph). Given the primary "delete" "argument" appeals solely to a gross misrepresentation of policy, there's no delete argument at all. WilyD 11:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ONEEVENT says that if an individual is covered solely because they were involved in an event, an article is not justified. None of the sources are about Trayvon at all - they are about the event and the effects of the event. Trayvon was just some random dude who isn't notable. (By the way, I was the one who nominated this for deletion). Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 03:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please actually read ONEEVENT before making assertions about what it says. It most definitely does not say that. It uses the specific example of Gavrilo Princip as someone notable solely because they were involved in a single event, who nonetheless should be covered in a biographical article because he was the subject of biographical sources as a result, in which he, rather than his participation in the event, was the focus of the source. Then, go and actually read the sources in the Trayvon Martin. Yes, a bunch of them are about his participation in the event, but a bunch are also just about him. Same principles. The problem with the delete argument is that it's based on factually incorrect assertions. In the future, please familiarise yourself with policies before trying to enforce them (and please familiarise yourself with articles before nominating them for deletion). WilyD 10:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse no consensus. - As Wily points out, ONEEVENT, at least its current wording, is not really applicable. From Wikipedia's biography article, the aspects of a biography are 1. account of a person's life. Yes, there plenty of GNG about that for the Trayvon Martin topic. 2. more than basic facts. Yes. the coverage is going to be very in-depth. 3. subject's experience of education, work, relationships, and death events. Yes, that is written about. So what's missing? Why doesn't a biography fit in this satiation?
In just about all cases, writers do not begin writing about someone's life at the moment that person is born. For example, biographers were not writing about Jesus or George Washington on the day of their birth. In most biographies, an event will trigger subsequent coverage of a person's life events apart from the now-past event. Forward coverage of a person's life makes a person's ordinary life events extra ordinary and subsequent coverage of a person's life apart from the now-past event justifies a biography. Sometimes, coverage of a person's life going forward causes writers to look backwards in time to critically evaluate that persons life before the event. In Trayvon Martin case, he really did not do anything out of the ordinary before the event that would cause writers to look backwards in time to critically evaluate his life before the event. They have written about it, but not because something he did stood out or merits critical review. Because he is deceased, there won't be any subsequent coverage of his life apart from the now-past event. So looking forwards and backwards, it does not seem that a biography is the main way to present Trayvon Martin's life elements.
I think our focus on comparing the BLP1E one event to the person's life elements or, in this AfD, high-profile coverage is misplace when determining whether a topic can be presented as a biography. Writers are now writing about Trayvon Martin's life merely because people are interested, not because the writers are motivated by the BLP1E event. So BLP1E is not an issue. However, because Trayvon Martin essentially lived an ordinary life before coverage of his life began, there is nothing that stands out in Trayvon Martin life to justify a Wikipedia biography article. However, that is AfD argument, not DRV comment. The AfD debate was divided, so endorse no consensus. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse no consensus close. I am sympathetic to the closer as there was little likelihood that any close would not bring opposition and a referral to DRV. However, based on the arguments made, where both "sides" made decent points but were in my opinion not able to refuse the other side, it is impossible to claim that there was a consensus for any particular outcome. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse, an accurate close which reflected the consensus in the discussion. Cavarrone 15:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The close was clearly within the discretion of the closing admin, even though the "delete" arguments were so weak I would have been inclined to close it as "keep" (and I say that as someone initially inclined to think deletion would have been appropriate, until I examined what policy actually said). WP:ONEEVENT states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Few of those supporting deletion explained how that was inapplicable. Judging by the amount of coverage in reliable sources, this clearly qualifies as a highly significant event (and we shouldn't seek to substitute our own views on its significance for those of reliable sources). And they clearly treated him as playing a large role in the incident, as I would have thought was obvious in the case of a confrontation between two people in which one fatally shoots the other. Neljack (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. The misapplications of policy by the delete voters were given far too much weight in assigning a no consensus close. `Jclemens (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Both "no consensus" and "keep" were within discretion based on that debate. I think I'd personally have preferred "keep" but I won't give Mark Arsten a hard time for going the other way.—S Marshall T/C 08:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|