Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Lowery

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Lowery

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a five-year-old boy, whose only substantive claim of notability is that he received a large number of Christmas cards after his diagnosis with terminal cancer was publicized on social media. As sad as his prognosis is, "kid with cancer" is not in and of itself a reason why someone gets immortalized in an encyclopedia; it's not rare enough to be automatically noteworthy just for being unusual, the phenomenon of using e-mail chain letters or social media posts to get greeting cards sent to an ill child is not a unique angle, and even the number of cards he got isn't unusually large as these things go -- so there's just no discernible reason why this would satisfy the ten-year test for enduring significance. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete. I agree with your reasoning. There's not much justification to having a separate article for this boy, as tragic as his situation is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

**Either weak keep or weak transwiki into Wikiversity as a case study I personally had a closed ones who is diagnosed with a late stage cancer, so if the subject did indeed fail WP:BLP, I may advocate a transwiki of this article into Wikiversity as a case study for further research. But I'm not sure whether his family will be okay with that transwiki option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - ~~The subject did indeed famous for one event per WP:BLP1E so I reiterate my position. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)~~ [reply]
    - Also for Bearcat's arguments regarding the ten year test, I have to say that significance cannot degrade over time. It can only remain constant or increase as the time progresses per WP:DEGRADE. The subject is not significant enough to warrant an article, but it certainly warrant a case study at Wikiversity, ideally with his family's consent. I rest my case for now.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
      - ~~Wikiversity is an educational program, not a dumping ground for random bits that couldn't make the cut at Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 06:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)~~ [reply]
        After I have go through the links presented by 86.20.193.222 I have decided to include "weak keep" into my position. The subject demonstrated basic WP:GNG based on the new evidences presented by the IP contributor. But I'm still not sure whether his family will be okay with that.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Striking vote of blocked user, who was only participating at AfD to make a point. Brad v 04:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless there is some notability that I'm not seeing, there's nothing here that warrants an article (cf. WP:BIO, WP:NOTMEMORIAL). The above comment to send to Wikiversity makes no sense whatsoever. Brad v 20:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news and nothing here rises above passing daily news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is not BLP1E, because there are reliable sources covering several distinct events, such as a) getting over 300,000 xmas cards, b) raising of money for specialist treatment in the USA, c) winning the "Match of the Day" goal award. Being a cancer-sufferer is not a single event; it's not as if the stories were only e.g. discussing someone who had died from cancer (and was thus 'known' for that single reason. The "Goal of the Month" award, is quite significant in terms of notability. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure why the above user mentions "NOTMEMORIAL", because Lowery is not dead. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally,

- A charity football match between Newcastle and Sunderland was arranged to raise money for him [1] (ITV News)
- A pop-music single reached number 15 in the charts [2] (Chronicle)
- He was a special guest-star at the BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards [3] (Mail Online)
- A woman was arrested over a facebook post about him [4] (Mirror)

86.20.193.222 (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2017 (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.