Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 30
 |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
- 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.
When considering to close this discussion, it was important to determine the arguments that were completely unsupported by policy, arguments along the lines of I like it and other stuff exists. Petitions and mass keep voting are similarly ineffective, as Wikipedia is not a democracy.
The person's death and the circumstances surrounding that have garned widespread news coverage, and the individual has reached a degree of notoriety for his story. Granted, arguments that his notability is due to one event do gel, and while notability is not temporary it may be worth reevaluating this in the future. However, presently there does not appear to be consensus here to delete the article.
This discussion has been closed as no consensus. LFaraone 08:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Ben Breedlove[edit]
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Ben Breedlove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails to show notability, mostly focuses on his final pair of videos and his death, and should be deleted per WP:NTEMP ("[I]f reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.") also see WP:MEMORIAL -TinGrin 04:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Important Comment -The number of views to Ben Breedlove's Wikipedia article in the last day-Appx. 30,000. This is high volume traffic to an article. WHY is this article even being discussed for deletion?! Petersontinam (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Addition to Comment -On January 4, Ben Breedlove Article on Wikipedia had 27,700 views. On January 5, 26,400 views according to the January 2012 graph. The total was 399,639 without Today, January 6 being added in. Barrak Obama had 91 views in January 2012, and I know that is not relevant to this discussion but I thought it was interesting.Petersontinam (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -This should be an addition to his article...The HCMA(Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Association) is creating a special bracelet for Ben Breedlove. They will say, "RIP Big Hearted Ben Breedlove." This bracelet will help raise awareness for the heart condition. [1] Petersontinam (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Quote: "Notabilty is not Temporary." Once a topic has been the subject of "significan coverage", it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Therefore, as long as Ben breedlove is determined to have significant coverage, this page does not need endless proof that it is significant.
- Also, Repeatedly through the Policies and guidelines, are sentences about using "common sense" by Editors, that no guideline is written in stone, etc. If a subject is deceased and in reality has no chance to put forth further events to "solidify" their page at wikipedia, this should not count against them. In reference to a personality such as Snookie or a Kardashian...because they are not deceased and have the ability to add to their notariety (Even if bad press), does not give them an advantage at securing a page at wikipedia. Common Sense. Think.
- Also, If Ben were thought of under Creative Professionals, yes he does fit there, The guidelines of being "widely cited by peers" and "originating a significant concept" adhere. The concept and discussion of life after death is not original, yes, but it is surely original for 10's of thousands of people to believe in it after getting to know Ben's life and videos.
- Also, when people who wish to delete are citing that it is one event, or based on one event (his death), there are policies which speak of writing separate or additonal articles...it does not say that one event is not worthy of a page. Please consider this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.235.150 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.235.235.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Please refer to the XfD page: Ben Breedlove has many, many comments (though not all that have been posted are there) and discussion. ALL other topics and subjects that are nominated to be deleted have a minimum of 1 comment, maximum of about 3. If there is this much interest within the walls of wikipedia itself and its community, it is Noteworthy enough to have a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersontinam (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I went to the definition of "Noteable". I read it carefully. Ben Breedlove fits the criteria...over and over and not just barely. I urge others to go to this page. If deletion is truly about whether he fits within the guidelines, your answer is on that page. Also, there is very important information and guidelines about RESPECT in debates, and I believe "meatpuppet shrieking" does NOT fit within those guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.235.150 (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.235.235.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- How in the world can YOU determine if he will "remain a low-profile individual"? You are not doing your research apparently. Go to Legacy.com, BREEDLOVE TV, etc. There are hundreds of messages going in daily, still, about how Ben affected their lives. So, you can predict that in the future, people will not seek out Ben Breedlove on Wikipedia? Do you have a way to measure all the pages on Wikipedia every day and determine if they are receiving enough attention to warrant a page? Will you headhunt everything on Wikipedia that is good, gives hope, and touches hearts and then make sure you put up deletion warnings? Leaving pages about despair, crime, sleaze, and celebrities famous for only sex tapes to have a permanent place here? A little screwed up and a LOT censored...Take another look at the guidelines and tell me with a straight face and honestly that Ben does not fit within these. It is NOT a songle even, but an ongoing outpouring. Every day, people are still seeking his name...guess they may not find him on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.235.150 (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.235.235.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete - Based on Wikipedia standards, article should be deleted. As mentioned by others, Ben Breedlove did inspire others and contributed good in that way, but almost all coverage seems to focus on a single event (his death) and likelyhood of his becoming more notable beyond that is unlikely. While Snooki and the Kardashians may have contributed far less good to society, as others mentioned, they unfortunately have many more events of note, and thus meet the Wikipedia guidelines. Please respect Wikipedia's mission and editorial objective and honor Ben Breedlove in other ways. Tmaroney (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tmaroney — Tmaroney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - Article in its so far one day existence, has already 90,000 views; (Edit: 130,000 views the next day; 220,000 in two days) has coverage from all around the word (Ninemsn; Los Angeles Times; American Broadcasting Company; CBS News; MSNBC; Fox News; MTV; Daily Mail; Independent; Herald Sun; Washington Post; People Magazine) - article itself is even mentioned on the KXAN news broadcast here (skip to 2:00). Also, his funeral was broadcasted on
TVInternet! 11,000 viewers online; 1,400 attending. I see notability in bright colours. -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 04:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - you can't use the recursive logic that he should have a wikipedia page, just because a local news report mentioned that he has a wikipedia page. -TinGrin 07:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reply - No, just provided information, that corroborates notability. -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 07:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: His funeral was not "broadcasted [sic] on TV." It was live streamed on the internet. Television and the internet are two different things. --Crunch (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reply: 11,000 people. Either way, internet or not internet, they still "broadcasted" it - and more than ten-thousand people watched it. That's still a pretty big number - for a "non"-notable person. -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 13:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reply: Sorry nothing was "broadcasted." Broadcast, perhaps, but not "broadcasted." --13:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reply: 11,000 people. Either way, internet or not internet, they still "broadcasted" it - and more than ten-thousand people watched it. That's still a pretty big number - for a "non"-notable person. -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 13:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: His funeral was not "broadcasted [sic] on TV." It was live streamed on the internet. Television and the internet are two different things. --Crunch (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reply - No, just provided information, that corroborates notability. -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 07:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Crunch, you do realize that he has done more to better our society than most, [redacted] This page does not take up valuable space [redacted]. You must have searched his name to find the page in the first place, so don't you think other people will search for his page as well? Mcooper92 (talk)MC — Mcooper92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Reply. Wikipedia has guidelines for measuring notability of a person. Doing good for society is not one of these measures, nor is being the object of curiosity resulting in high traffic to an article on Wikipedia about the person. And finally, articles are not proposed for deletion, or deleted, because they "take up valuable space." They are deleted because they fail to meet Wikipedia guidelines.--Crunch (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - you can't use the recursive logic that he should have a wikipedia page, just because a local news report mentioned that he has a wikipedia page. -TinGrin 07:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Worthy people die every day, but an encyclopedia is not the place to remember them. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - You act as if the page is taking up valuable space. Only people searching for the page will find it, so I don't see why the deletion of the page is relevant to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcooper92 (talk • contribs) contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - Individual is an Internet personaility ~ I can name you many articles that document them. -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 05:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. His notability as an internet personality before his death was perhaps marginal, but when it is combined with the voluminous coverage in first-class sources since he died, notability is clear. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - being inspirational, or having a viral video, is not the same as being notable. NBC Nightly News has inspirational pieces every night, the majority of which do not meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability -TinGrin 07:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Repy - how many internet personalities do you know that have had world coverage, with news-articles on them, from all different countries; had multiple broadcasts on them; had their own funeral broadcasted live on TV, start to finish; multiple viral videos - yet no notability? Apologies, but I'm just finding this a little hard to imagine. -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 07:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reply. Again, his funeral was neither broadcast nor "broadcasted" [sic] on TV. It was live streamed on the internet. Second, there have been plenty of subjects of viral videos who have gotten wide-spread media coverage. Who does not remember the video of the little boy riding home from the dentist, or any number of sneezing or talking babies, puppies and kittens? The fact that the media latches on to these short-lived feel good stories, DOES NOT mean that the subject is notable. Most of them have not died yet, so the opportunity for a live-streamed funeral is a moot point. --Crunch (talk)
- Crunch, if you would actually please read the article, you would know what you are shouting out is disproportionately out of line. Nowhere in the article did it say his memorial service was "live streamed" on the Internet. It was broadcast on KXAN-TV. And this story is a "short-lived feel good" one? You're attacking the subject of this very article as much as you are attacking the other editors. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reply Obviously, I read the article. It states, "The memorial service was broadcast live on KXAN." This is a statement that editor MelbourneStar also made, though since corrected, in this discussion. The accompanying references do not support the live television broadcast claim. The references state that the funeral was streamed live on the KXAN website. If you do a Google search for "breedlove funeral on television" you will see that the television claim is false. Again, there is a difference between a live television broadcast and a live-streamed internet video on a television station's website. --Crunch (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Voting isn't going to get this thing anywhere because it is definitely going to be a keep if we are counting the votes. A majority of these voters seems to be random people that pop onto wikipedia to get this article not deleted. People die everyday. I am of the opinion that this guy would be of no importance in the next few years or months, but I'll stay neutral.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Case of WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia not being a memorial. Bgwhite (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep He is an inspiration to all of us and his actions are somewhat notable. No harm keeping the page. Orangewarning (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- "No harm in keeping the page" is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - The supposed reason for notability of this person are his vlogs. I don't think his vlogs were that popular as portrayed by the article. Wikipedia is not a memorial site as many others before me have said. Being an inspiration to others does not warrant an article in this case. May I suggest a brief write-up on the YouTube celebrities page if he happens to hit notability requirements for such. Paul 1953 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Keep – per MelbourneStar. Completely passes WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:N in their entirety. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Liberal touting of WP policy - don't you think? The whole Wikipedia policy of WP:N is to be reflected and this fails WP:NTEMP "completely". Fails part of WP:BIO per WP:ONEEVENT. - JoshuaWalker | Talk to Me 14:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reply - Wanted to address this- WP:NTEMP "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Part of the Policy is to say that it does not need ongoing coverage...Though Ben Breedlove does have that. The other part of the Policy is about if they are likely to remain a low profile individual, which so far Ben has not been low profile. Proof of level of profile: On YouTube alone, Ben Breedlove's 3 Channels have these numbers- 10,512,000+ Uploaded Views, 111,533+ Subscibers, 12,826+ Comments (mostly messages of inspiration), and hundreds and hundreds of videos inspired by him where people are telling "their story"...which continue to come in daily. This is just one place. Which also addresses the inclusion criteria for Notability- Events. "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards." It is not true to say that this article fails. Petersontinam (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Liberal touting of WP policy - don't you think? The whole Wikipedia policy of WP:N is to be reflected and this fails WP:NTEMP "completely". Fails part of WP:BIO per WP:ONEEVENT. - JoshuaWalker | Talk to Me 14:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reply to Comment Below - Stating that this person will "soon be forgotten" is not an acceptable reason for a delete according to WP:CRYSTAL. Also, While an AfD is "not conducted by amassing votes", it also should take into consideration the reasons that are stated while quoting a policy, the actual words of the Policies (and not just the titles) and if they truly apply to the situation.Petersontinam (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - despite the temporary media storm and the many sudden visitors here at AfD, this was a piece of media hype about a non-notable individual who will soon be forgotten. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and AfD is not conducted by amassing votes, canvassed or not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - unsure of notability at the moment, but could somebody protect this page as there seems to a pile-on of meatpuppets shouting "keep keep keep keep" at ear piercing volume. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. -- As mentioned by the nominator, Wikipedia is not a Memorial. Being the subject or creator a temporarily popular viral video does not make one notable nor does this meet the requirements for WP:BIO. Should we create biography articles for every cute baby playing with a puppy who shows up in a viral video that the media latches on to? Of course not. This isn't any difference. --Crunch (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Strong keep - The plethora of sources show that this topic clearly passes WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I'm finding it difficult on this one. Internet personalities are transient at best, it's difficult for us to prove notability on one, especially one who is not going to be producing anything new. This viral video is less than a week old, but it has clearly had more than a little effect, given the fact that so many news outlets are covering it. This isn't a WP:MEMORIAL situation, as it's not written as a memorial and not by anyone who knows him. If you look prior to Christmas day there are no gnews hits, so it does make me think "one event". However, I think I've fallen on the side of Keep. He meets the GNG, he's an internet personality, he's made a viral video which many many news outlets are covering, celebrities have been commenting on him. WormTT · (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Meets GNG as the object of multiple, substantial, published independent stories. It's a pretty well done piece on top of that, and that should absolutely be taken into consideration on "close calls." The encyclopedia is clearly better with than without the piece. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - At least wait a while to see if notability develops further. Time may be the most significant factor here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.46.35 (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — 101.170.46.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment As a member of WikiProject Death I've gone through several articles about young people who became "notable" for dying for one reason or another -- usually murder or "bullycide". Several of them had been nominated for deletion. The ones that are kept have proved some degree of "historical" relevance -- meaning their death has on some scale shifted public perception about the issue relevant to their death. Establishing historical relevance takes time and this article was created too soon. As someone said above, currently we have a case of WP:BLP1E, though I must admit the coverage is impressive. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment' I don't have a chance to express my opinion with a "Keep" or "Delete" commentary, that's because I'm from spanish Wikipedia, my natal wiki where I contribute entirely. I think this could really help to know how much attention the media has brought in the last days about this boy. I consider we as a whole project could mantain this short entry for a while at least while we know if it's relevant because the same attention or influences in other people of foundations. Even we could find now sites like this around the web. --Phoenix58 (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment'I'll restrict my viewpoint to a comment at the moment since I'm a brand new community member and do not well understand all of the rights and responsibilities of authentic Wikipedia users yet. I'd like to edit the article as it appears currently and will endeavor to do so. I agree just about verbatim with user Jeraphine Gryphon above and will add that I see potential impact in the areas of social media use by budding high school-aged internet entrepreneurs, viral spread of news on the internet, and raised awareness for Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, among other things. I do think "this article was created too soon" and is attracting a lot of SPA-type fervor which is distracting from the potential value of Ben's story. There are also important and relevant facts on the above areas of potential influence that I'd like to add. I'm a former journalist and parent at Ben's high school and will try earnestly to "rescue" this article as I'm able to learn more about Wikipedia procedures. I welcome emails from community members that can help guide me on my first edit. Since I still have a lot to learn about "talk" and discussion pages I prefer email contact. AllisonPeacock (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC) — AllisonPeacock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep Ben's video from shortly before his death has has quite an impact on views about dying, life after death, and how to cope with those, that people looking for information on him should be able to find it on Wikipedia. In fact I'm really surprised at this discussion, for there are many people with an article on Wikipedia that deserve this attention far less. It is not because he was just another teenager with a blog that he should be covered on Wikipedia, but because of the social and worldwide impact of his last video. Anyone searching for background should be able to find that on Wikipedia. There certainly are many more examples on Wikipedia of events and people that get enormous attention during a short period of time, and get coverd with an article. Need I go on? It's obvious, even if you don't like the subject of his experiences.--Satrughna (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
"I like it" or "I don't like it" style votes from SPAs[edit]
Note: we don't keep or delete pages based on people's personal views; to actually contribute to this deletion discusssion, please cite relevant Wikipedia policies. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- KEEP - I did not come here because some website asked me to. I live in the Rocky Mountain west and do not know the Breedlove family or anyone associated with them. I came to Wikipedia to learn more about Ben Breedlove and was shocked to learn the information I was seeking is being considered for deletion. Any teenager who can accomplish as much PUBLICLY in his or her short life as Ben Breedlove did should be given the same consideration and acknowledgement as an adult who accomplishes something publicly significant. If personalities such as the Kardashian family, who are famous only for being famous, can meet the criteria for admission to Wikipedia, then a teenage boy who produced scores of videos that garnered a large public following, and whose last video entry has rivited and inspired literally millions of people around the globe with his courage and perspective should certainly qualify. bconnerjr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bconnerjr (talk • contribs) 09:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — Bconnerjr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - The huge explosion of support for Ben and his family following his death is more than enough reason to keep the page. He has inspired many people, including myself, and I believe that he has done more to better our society than many other "notable" people who have pages on Wikipedia. Mcooper92 (talk)MC —Preceding undated comment added 07:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC). — Mcooper92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. - The fact that he was "inspirational" is valuable for you, but means nothing when establishing Wikipedia notability. Wikipedia is not a collection of articles about people who personally inspire you. --Crunch (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: You know, Crunch, you're right. This may explain why some of the teachers I have had, who have inspired many things in my life, do not appear on the site, but apparently I'm not the only one who was inspired- imagine that! Frankly, if you want Wikipedia to have more notability as a "real" online encyclopedia, it probably shouldn't include Snookie and Kim Kardashian. Mcooper92 (talk)MC — Mcooper92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - This article shouldn't be deleted. Ben was an inspirational young man, and Wikipedia should respect him enough to allow this page to stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.248.27 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 30 December 2011 — 70.184.248.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete A non-notable person that posted videos on the internet and then had an NDE, why is this even being discussed? Wikipedia should not be a memorial Facebook page. 12:56, 30 December 2011 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.138.56 (talk) — 31.185.138.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - Although I am inclined to mention the emotional significance of this, I will remain neutral. As an internet personality, he falls into the category of personalities and memes that have only achieved fame because of their internet videos or phenomenons. If Rickrolling can exist, a mere internet concept, there is no reason this can't exist. Indeed, in the age we live in perhaps we should be documenting more internet personalities, instead of deleting them. I see absolutely no memorial statements on that article, just facts about his life and final video. -- An Unknown Soldier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.178.151 (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — 76.110.178.151 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep. The person above is right, wikipedia isn't a memorial site, but Ben has become an inspiration to people ALL OVER the world. There was a lady from Scotland talking about him and watching his funeral. Ben changed my life as well as tons of others. He deserves this page. // Honestly, if Wikipedia deletes this page, i would lost all respect for the entire site and i wouldnt ever use it again. I think youd have to be sick to delete this page. There have been over 90,000 views in one day, so many people want to learn about this honorable mans life. Yes, he was an inspiration, but honorable and worthy as well. If wikipedia deletes bens page i will speak very poorly of it in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.238.25 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 December 2011 — 76.183.238.25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- KEEP I am confused as to why we are considering deletion watching his video is sufficient reason to not do so.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.168.193 (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — 74.111.168.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep: This young man has been an inspiration to so many people around the world with his "days before his death" video. In a day and age where people are looking for meaning in life, and are so scared of death, his legacy provides hope for all who are simply yearning for something bigger than themselves. Ben's video provides this proof in such a sweet and joyful way that has moved thousands. Isn't that enough reason that this boy deserves to be recognized; his final words have made a difference that the world desparately desires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.80.241 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 30 December 2011 — 74.33.80.241 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep: Ben's videos have gone viral. His story is breaking on major news websites as mentioned by previous posts. Ben's inspirational story deserves a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersox (talk • contribs) 06:47, 30 December 2011 — Andersox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep 76.103.189.240 (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — 76.103.189.240 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep. The world needs more faith. Wiki needs to keep an open mind and see that this young man has, and will continue to touch the lives of many. Today the world has so little to set their faith on. When a young person comes forward with such faith like Ben did it is a wonderful thing. Deletion of this article wouldn't be right, seeing's as how he has so many followers, and has been acknowledged by several celebrities. Keep. Keep. Keep 13:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.244.81 (talk) — 71.3.244.81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. And lo and behold up turns another anonymous meatpuppet shrieking "keep keep keep" as I predicted just a few paragraphs above. Look, I miss my grandmother, but a page on her wouldn't survive a speedy delete. Go and find some reliable sources for events other than the single one given a one off treatment by the media or deal with the fact the page may get deleted. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Sad story, but there are plenty of sad stories on all of the other news sites reporting this. He was a great kid that died from a birth defect. Sorry if it sounds heartless, but he wasn't murdered. This wasn't unexpected. There aren't Wiki pages for kids like Mitchell Henderson, whose tragic suicide made headlines. If Ben can get his own wiki memorial, kids like Mitch should, too, and we all know that's a slippery slope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.204.134 (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — 99.24.204.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Strong Keep - Many people rely on Wikipedia for the facts, as best and honest as can be presented. I heard about this person through the media and wanted to know as much as possible. Very grateful this information was already posted. I trust the links and was able to get to everything relevant. This is my first post. He inspired me to speak up. This person is incredibly precious to our society in total. CLaCharite (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2011 (USA EastCoast) — Clacharite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep This young man's life story and his wonderful messages of faith, life and dignity are amazing. If you remove this post then you would have to remove the articles of every so called "celebrity" like the Kim Kardashian's. dwr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.49.241 (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC) — 69.180.49.241 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- "KEEP" This is not a memorial but simply honoring a popular video that was posted a week before the young man tragically died. The video is extremly popular and i inspirational i see no reason to delete it unless to be cruel this young mans story needs to be heard i dont know him but simply heard of him on facebook and wanted to know more. -kels97 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kels97 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC) — Kels97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - wikipedia is a reference point for widely believed 'relevant' information; the volume of searches on this event have proven that there is large enough interest on this subject to merit the retention of the article. As stated above in several months it may no longer be deemed 'relevant'. Surely there are already thousands of articles on wikipedia about deceased individuals that are no longer 'relevant'. Can't those with spare time on their hands to ensure the quality of wikipedia flag those articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.20.164 (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC) — 66.69.20.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- WE MUST KEEP THIS PAGE. Ben Breedlove has been a world wide inspiration and deserves his own page. His message has reached millions and Ben will be remembered for many years to come and people will want to look him up and see his story. Wikipedia is perfect for this. It shows how he lived his life, what he did before his death, and it discusses the death. This is a perfectly built page with plenty of sources and information to stay live. Please keep this page up. Ben is far too important to just "delete". Thanks and R.I.P Ben. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.175.182.70 (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC) — 173.175.182.70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep: Ben Breedlove had a place in this world. Many people have a place on Wikipedia for their notable deaths. To survive death not once but THREE times is extremely notable, and not common at all. Besides, Ben was also a YouTube personality. He was going places. I think people all over the country would be very disappointed to find Ben's page removed. In just a week, the two videos spanning his story have reached over two million hits apiece. His page will attract much web traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.248.250 (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — 70.249.248.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Weak keep For now. The national media coverage has been enormous--couldn't watch morning or evening news this week without seeing this. I recognize that short-term or single-event notability doth not an article make, nor do we do memorials, but I'd suggest giving this a few weeks' shelf life before a determination is made. Can always be revisited and renominated if appropriate. For the moment it's a high-profile story. Incidentally, I've no connection to the above IPs, and wonder if some of the 'keeps' constitute multiple submissions by a single account. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This has received a lot of media attention just like Ted Williams did. If this is removed, then the article for Mr. Williams should be also along with any other person that gained popularity from being an Internet Meme. Mr Xaero (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Internet celebrity BigDwiki (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep for now, and re-evaluate once the hype and the sensationalist media coverage has died down, and we can assess the notability from a better perspective. Swarm X 02:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:NTEMP. — AMK152 (t • c) 03:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Notability is not temporary is not a valid deletion reason. He has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources. WP:BLP1E may come into play if news coverage is not persistent. However, the event was extremely recent, so this is currently impossible to evaluate whether or not there is persistent coverage. I believe the article should be kept for now. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - huge amount of independent coverage, that's all there is to it. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as subject is the focus of multiple reliable third-party sources and crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Personally, I think Wikipedia does itself a disservice in devoting time and energy to trying to delete articles like this one in the full glare and heat of the media spotlight. Re-visit in six months when a dispassionate discussion can be held rather than stirring up the raw emotions that now surround the subject. - Dravecky (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The article does not satisfy WP:BIO. This is clearly a memorial article, which is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, and the references are just a mass of sad eulogies following his untimely death.Revisit in 6 months, 1 year, 5 years if sentiment prevents deletion at this time. Edison (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Edison- William 00:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
*"Keep" - why wouldn't this page be kept? There's a wikipage about Bubbles the chimpanzee, but people have an issue with Ben's page. Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foghrnleghrn (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — Foghrnleghrn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment "Other inappropriate articles exist" is a poor argument for retaining this one. Edison (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: I was intending to go neutral on this, but now I am inclined to keep, mainly due to the overwhelming coverage of the subject. Ben Breedlove has been identified as an internet celebrity and has applicable citations supporting it. I'm satisfied Superlayna (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: First of all I have to say I am quite surprised and quite disappointed about this whole 'situation' here on Wikipedia. Until today I always thought that Wikipedia was a reliable 'objective' resource when one wanted to find out more about a topic or person. However today I am learning that there are people who like censorship and it saddens me even more to see that this is done on the back of such a delicate topic! Before I get to the 'Wikipedia guideline facts' I would like to share a couple of personal thoughts nevertheless:
It was my Mum, who lives in Germany (she doesn't speak much English, doesn't know how to use any of Facebook, Twitter, or other internet things than doing some research and emailing) who told me about an article about a young man who just died (tragically) and who's YouTube video was the most viewed these days...I don't know about you but for me that sounds like an international/worldwide coverage, doesn't it?! And even if that seemingly isn't enough to become 'notable' in the Wikipedia terms for 'Non-Wikipedian' humans, and even if seemingly Ben's large internet followership from all his YouTube subscribers and other internet networks / communities isn't a big enough argument for some here that this young man contributed quite a lot to this world in a positive way...where is the respect and caring humanity towards his family, his peers and all the people who where close to him and for whom these days are already challenging enough - without having to witness a public discussion if Ben is 'worth' an article on Wikipedia or not (as that's what this burns down to at the moment)... Some of you are concerned about 'making Wikipedia a better online Encyclopedia' - yet are not really bothered to make this world a better place, otherwise there wouldn't be such a discussion about if this article should be kept or not! Is it really so difficult instead of going through guidelines (which certainly have their place) looking for negative points which could maybe enable a deletion of an article, to make the shift to a positive attitude and taking a valid piece of contribution and turn it into what it really can be and should be: a reference point for people like me who are doing research on the internet on topics of interest... I don't know who initiated the article originally but I am convinced that given time more and more people who really knew Ben and care about him will be in a position to contribute and turn this article into a valid source of information about someone special and notable. Don't expect family and close friends to be able to write this kind of content so shortly after the event! Give them space, time and the due respect - is that really so difficult?!? There is already a former journalist and parent at Ben's school who would like to contribute to the article and I am sure there will be more valuable resources coming up - they deserve a chance to proof that the guidelines are/will be met. Speaking of which due to this whole incident I had a closer look at the guidelines today as apparently that's what you are going to take more in consideration than any common sense, authentic and from the bottom of their hearts votes: In my opinion WP:BASIC, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ENT (and in the future maybe even WP:ANYBIO) apply to this article. Give the ones who care about Ben and his life/work a chance to create and find reliable content on Wikipedia!Scarlet O'Mara (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — Scarlet O'Mara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Weak keep - There is coverage in reliable sources, albeit for a single event. I suggest we let this one pass for the time being, and suggest opening a further AfD in, say, six months time. This debate reminds me of WP:Articles for deletion/Rhys Morgan a few weeks back, where I went for "Keep" mainly because I believed notable events of his were likely to increase in the future. That probably isn't the case here unless some well known person or organisation picks up this guy's story and runs with it. PS: Claiming Wikipedia is pro censorship is a great way to poison a debate quickly into bickering, distracting from the issues of whether or not an article meets the well known WP quality rules. --Ritchie333 (talk)
- Reply Ritchie333, I am certainly not trying to poison a debate nor starting any bickering trying to distract from the issue and far more importantly I NEVER claimed Wikipedia is pro censorship as I have a very high opinion of this great 'institutional' website - all I said was that there are seemingly some people who like 'censorship' when they start a debate about such an article in such a manner...as I am sure that there might be other articles that could be more suitable for such a debate. And even if I take the risk here being also called a (vegetarian) 'meatpuppet' than it will be - it's not going to stop me expressing how this whole thing feels and that it doesn't seem right!
Or how can it be otherwise that there is such an ongoing debate with so many 'keeps' based on the Wikipedia guidelines?!? PS: Thank you for your (weak) keep 'nevertheless' :-)Scarlet O'Mara (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - While a sensitive situation, a Wikipedia article is a Wikipedia article. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:NTEMP. (Secondary Comment - Keep arguments fail to detail Wikipedia policy.) - JoshuaWalker | Talk to Me 14:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Surely WP:NTEMP is in support of retaining the article - he's had substantial independent coverage from multiple sources. WP:BLP1E may be relevant here, but that would only lead us to move to Death of Ben Breedlove, (which I wouldn't support as the coverage right now is focussing on his life and videos rather than just his death) not deletion. Just quoting policies does not an argument make. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep""" - Ben Breedlove DOES fall within the guidelines! The Bullies on here talking about puppies and meatpuppets are not being neutral and are extremely innappropriate. You cannot call people "meatpuppets" because they strongly believe in retaining a page and have actual reason to support it! The mission statement for Wikipedia is an online place for knowledge and tens of thousands of people are seeking information on Ben Breedlove. Why? For many different reasons that are valid and legitimate. This is scary that anyone should even have to fight for this page to remain..is Wikipedia what it proclaims to be, or a popularity contest of members who are like toddlers stamping to have their own way. Like it or not, believe in goodness or not, Ben Breedlove is relevant, newsworthy, noteworthy, and has affected the lives of literally millions of people. Especially Teenagers! While we of an older generation have never given teenagers the credit they deserve, Ben has made it crystal clear. I am starting to believe that if anything even touches on religeon here, it gets deleted and THAT is not open and honest for an online encylcopedia. Everyone keeps stating "Wikipedia Policy", yet they are failing to actually spell out the words of the policies...Is Wikipedia a place for knowledge or not? A few bullying type members are saying this is a "memorial page"...Are there no other personalities on Wikipedia that are deceased? Does the article look like a "facebook memorial page"? NO. It is a collection of information on an individual who tens of thousands of people wanted to know more about and have been seeking. That does not fit within the Wikipedia guidelines?! You are so wrong and stubborn, you cannot see what you are censoring for the sake of your own personal opinions. I have started a petition on Change.org because of this...to keep Ben Breedlove's page here. I had no other choice because Wikipedia does not seem to be listening with open-minded ears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.235.150 (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.235.235.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. Being "an online source of knowledge" is not a stated mission of Wikipedia, as the above poster claims. You can learn more about Wikipedia and its mission and policies here: About Wikipedia. You also stated that posters are failing to spell out the policies they are stating. Many posters in this discussion have mentioned specific policies using approved shorthand links, for example, WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. By clicking on any of these shorthand links, you can read the entire policy. I hope this helps. --Crunch (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reply I am the poster who claimed it is an online source of knowledge, said it was a mission statement. I did so because on the Founder's page, it is clearly said that is true. The purpose of Wikipedia was broken down into that simple statement. The reason it came about into existance is from that sentence. Check it out.
As far as Policy, I wish I knew how to use approved shorthand links to prove the worthiness of Ben's page, as I have come across many statements in policy that support it. When I cick on the links that some have listed for support against keeping this page, I am not convinced that they are proof. Possibly, the Policies are conflicting in this case and need to be reviewed? Also, as I have said before...the community members who have the strongest feelings that Ben's page should be deleted certainly have not taken to heart the other policies about discussion concerning mutual respect and border on bullying. I have also put forth that the deletion process needs to be reviewed. If there is as much confusion as there clearly is on this matter...I believe the Policies need to be looked at, reviewed. Do you think that is fair? An argument for deletion stating that one's Grandmother shoudn't have a page is weak. If Ritchie's Grandmother had 1,700,000 plus results from a "yahoo" search, I imagine he would be on the frontline to keep a page for her. Other arguments for deletion that are extremely troubling compare Ben's story to "puppies" and people who vote Keep to "shrieking meatpuppets." I challenge you to actually research this story, his impact, The mainstream media stories from araound the world...I challenge you to spend some TIME on this before shouting Delete. If you are all about the purity of Policy, then I publicly challenge you to put an open-minded, open-eyed look towards the Policies that this page fall under and actually click the links that people are using as proof. Now, on a personal level: Thousands of Teenagers are risking peer pressure and peer judgement (remember that?) to leave messages to Ben of how he changed their lives and will continue to change their lives in the FUTURE. That they will remember him for years to come and especially on Christmas. You have no right to conclude that they are lying or are exaggerating. thousands of people that fall into other age groups are saying the same things from around the world...that he will be thought of and remembered into the future. Are you the person who decides that they are just full of it? Are you the one to decide that this does not hold a place in Cultural History or does not become "noteworthy"? The mere fact of the numbers on this deletion discussion page is probably proof enough that it means something--that there is something here that is worthy of a place on Wikipedia. If there are ways to measure how many are viewing his page, it would be fair to use that and abide by what the numbers say. That can only happen if this page remains for them to see. Again, on a personal level: Sometimes "Miracles" are not just events that defy medical knowledge as in a movie. Maybe they are not parting of Seas or Burning bushes as heard in the Bible. Maybe, Miracles are smaller and still extremely valuable events where a person takes a different course in their life due to an inspiration. If this happens for tens of thousands of people, possibly millions, that is indeed Noteworthy. It should not matter if you agree, believe, or were there, if you are trying to determine the legitimacy of an event. If it didn't happen to you, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. I am asking that you clear your head of your own beliefs and look at this situation from that point of view: Is the event, the reaction to the event world-wide, the lasting affect...Is this worthy or not worthy of a page on Wikipedia. If you want numbers, I will post numbers every day. I will post again and again my interpretation of the Policies as they are written. I will remind you over and over of the purpose, as I saw it, explained of Wikipedia. Many others have offered up other pages that hold less importance than Ben's, yet have their permanent place on wikipedia. What troubles me the most is the tenacity in which a very few are trying to have this page deleted...for the sake of some kind of purity of Policy that isn't actually holding any water. These same few are picking apart sentences of others to the point of microscopic attacks on words that aren't even a part of the debate or ANY Policy. Man up, and at least admit that if both sides of the issue can cite Policy that supports their argument...then maybe the Policies are not clear or need to be retooled. In the meantime, there is International support for the importance of this young man named Ben Breedlove. If you would just take a step back and honestly check this out, you will see it is true. It's not right or fair to proclaim "Bleeding heart syndrome" when there is a real event happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.235.150 (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.235.235.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Good grief, chill out. For starters, you have overlooked that I have actually suggested to keep the article. You have also completely missed my (tongue in cheek) comment about my grandmother and set up a strawman argument around it, since my deceased grandmother does not have 1.7 million Yahoo hits. The number of web hits is irrelevant to notability, as has been well discussed at WP:GOOGLEHITS and a corresponding essay WP:GNUM, so please read those carefully. My point was rather this - my grandmother is dead, I miss her, she inspired my life and I have fond memories of her, but just being six foot under and fondly remembered does not make a subject notable, and if I tried to create a page about her, it would be speedily deleted quickly. My challenge to you is to calm down, take a deep breath, and go and edit something else on Wikipedia for a bit. Then, go and find reliable sources for other events than the ones linked to in the other sources relate to.
- I resent your accusations of bullying. I could give you some examples of cyber bullying so you can tell the difference, but it would not be civil, so I won't. --Ritchie333 (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -The shortcut for Google Hits also says.."The quality of the search engine results matter more than the raw number." For Ben Breedlove, the search results are mostly news articles, copywritten and reliable. I read it ALL carefully, as you suggested. Also, there is an important Policy that is inadvertantly getting mentioned heavily here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ATA#CRYSTAL , which addresses that "Editors should avoid using one (Crystal Ball) when commenting in a deletion discussion. Many "Delete's" are going against the Crystal Ball policy.
- I really don't want to seem like I'm picking on your Grandmother, believe me, but you keep using her as an example...It is apples and Oranges because although she was very special to you, she did not do what Ben Breedlove did-- affect the tens of thousands of people he did, receive the ongoing news coverage that he did, spring up Foundations and Charities for a family and medical condition as he did. So there is a glaring difference in which person should have a Wikipedia page and it is not based on worthiness to a few people, but should be based on RELEVANCE in the eyes of thousands.
- Telling me to "chill out" and go edit some other article is not helping anyone. Yes, I am new here. I believe it is probably very normal that whoever was new here at any given point came here due to a particular subject that meant something to them...whether it was to create an article, edit it, or try to save it. What I do while I am here, or after this process, is my own choice. I am trying to manuever the best I can. That will not affect me continuing to put forth my interpretations of Policy in regard to Keeping Ben Breedlove's page. You won't intimidate me into being silent about how if there IS such a huge discrepancy in Policy interpretation, then it is highly possible that the Policy is not Crystal Clear. Anyone who may be interested in reviewing that honestly, will probably address that in the future. But for me, if this page is deleted..I can imagine that it won't ever come back and I find that to be a senseless tragedy. You may have put forth "Weak keep", but you seem very determined to have this page deleted. If you are confused about bullying, maybe just research the word a little further. There are certainly different levels of bullying with different results. Using name calling as an intimidation tactic is one...in fact here on Wikipedia there is an excellent article about bullying. I understand very well that when a person feels passionate on a subject, they may squiggle outside the provided boundaries and I admit to doing it myself.
- The main topic of discussion here is whether Ben Breedlove should have a Wikipedia page and using Policies and Common Sense to determine that. I am going to have go ahead and have Faith in that the outcome will be that it remains...because it is right and it should.Petersontinam (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Obviously too soon to make any kind of judgement about this person's impact, and too soon to request that the page be deleted. Time is needed to determine whether Ben Breedlove will be of ongoing interest to other people. So silly to see this debate at this stage. Let's leave the page on Wikipedia for a while -- can't the history of views on this page be logged daily or weekly? Let the numbers speak for themselves after a 6 month period. A Daddd (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — A Daddd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep The article currently has enough references to qualify as notable. is his notability fleeting? could be, but per our policies, as long as a person or event is notable for any significant period of time, its notable enough for an article that will be permanent. I have trouble parsing "WP1EVENT", but my best understanding is if there is an event of some significance, and a person is connected to that event, they do not automatically get an article. otherwise, every person associated with anything would get an article. It just means we have to use critical thinking and judgement. In this case, the "event" is essentially him. Unfortunately, our media structure means that recent events will get substantially higher volumes of coverage than many more important past events (though he may end up being even more notable than he is now). We arent here to determine if this is fair, only if the coverage is significant by objective measures (commercial/established media coverage, from neutral third parties, not just fans).(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.151 (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
How dare someone try to take his wikipedia off. How dare you. His story was so inspiring and eye opening to so many people, he deserves to have a page simply for the fact that he truely did change peoples lives, and that there is significant information to put on his wikipedia, including links to his heart condition that can further educate people in our dumb society. Ive seen stupider wikipedia pages before in my life, this is not one them. --3:03 PM January 2, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.45.35 (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — 98.209.45.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Please could you refrain from using emotional language like "How dare you" - it weakens your case. --Ritchie333 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Direct Comment To Ritchie333: Asking someone to refrain from emotional language because it weakens their argument sounds terribly unfair coming from someone who said that the "meatpuppets were...shouting 'keep, keep, keep' at ear piercing volume..." I think you also used the terms meatpuppets shrieking...I believe you most definitely were leaking some emotion in your comments, so please try to be fair. Also, what do you have to say about other posts and comments that directly address Ben Breedlove's page as falling within the guidelines? Actually, I haven't heard one single word from the person(s) who put this page for deletion addressing the valid points that were laid out on behalf of keeping this page. Answer me directly, please, on even just the point about how the amount of debate and conversation on this subject is overwhelmingly showing how relevant it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersontinam (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please could you point out where I suggested the page should definitely be deleted. If you look at the discussion upthread, you will observe that I have made a suggestion to keep the article and review it in six months time. --Ritchie333 (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial site. WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and a surge of reports because of a single event (in this case sadly his young death) - fails, WP:NTEMP - Youreallycan (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reply -To "Youreallycan": I am not claiming that wikipedia should be a Memorial site. There are hundreds of Memorial sites for Ben breedlove. But Wikipedia SHOULD be a place that a person can go to look up Encylopedic information on Ben Breedlove. Nobody here is trying to leave Memorial Messages to him on his Page. On this Discussion page, people are saying how they feel which does include sentences that are favorable to Ben. If you "Yahoo" Ben Breedlove, 2,110,000 results come up. If you "Yahoo" Ben Breedlove Wikipedia, 105,000 results come up- Most of which are using Wikipedia as a reference! Using Wikipedia as a place to go to seek more information on Ben Breedlove, or are quoting information from his Wikipedia article. I don't know what else I can do to make this information sink in.
- Again, people who are voting to keep this page are not looking for it to be a Memorial site. There are places like Legacy.com or Facebook for that...which if you are not believing Ben's wide and profound impact on our society, you should really check out.
- Ritchie, I asked if the person(s) deleting this page had any comment. What I said to you was that it was unfair to tell someone that using emotion weakened their argument when you also used emotion. I know that you put in a "weak keep", but you called a lot of people "shrieking meatpuppets" for wanting to keep this page. Tell me, when does this decision get made and how does that decision come about? Does anyone know who makes the final decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersontinam (talk • contribs) 00:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have not called anyone a "shrieking meatpuppet" in this discussion. What I actually wrote was "there seems to a pile-on of meatpuppets shouting 'keep keep keep keep' at ear piercing volume". What I meant was that I felt the discussion was being drowned by many people who had never contributed to Wikipedia except to add to this debate, and stating to keep the article without citing relevant Wikipedia policies, which I felt would give the "deletionists" a better weighed argument. However, I decided to say all that in a less boring manner, and the only "emotion" I have displayed here is having a sense of humour!
- Comment Sorry, Ritchie, but yes you did. "And lo and behold up turns another anonymous meatpuppet shrieking "keep keep keep" as I predicted" is your direct quote. It doesn't necessarily come across as humor. Maybe others hadn't contributed before, but they are contributing NOW. And doing their best because it is not easy to figure this out for most of us as we are learning. I think it is fair to say that most people who are voting to keep this page are doing their best to cite policies. Will this be a helpful... or hostile environment for those who are drawn to become a part of this community?..Petersontinam (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- The point, which I've made elsewhere in this discussion, is that diving headlong into a lengthy AfD debate is one of the worst ways to get introduced to contributing to Wikipedia. Given you've come in and suddenly found yourself in a locked debate with people who have a reasonable grounding and understanding of Wikipedia policies, it's small wonder you've come across what you interpret as hostility. There are plenty of ways to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia that have nothing to do with AfD .. see WP:Contributing to Wikipedia and the associated videos. As stated elsewhere, if you have any further comments, may I suggest they go on my talk page. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
-
- In answer to your question, the decision will be made generally after around 7 days by an administrator. They will look at all arguments and decide what the best consensus will be. However, I believe that many comments from SPAs (ie: those that have been tagged 'x' has made little or no edits outside of this topic) are more likely to be discarded.
- Question -Would it be fair to say that this decision may be made on or around January 6th?Petersontinam (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would suggest everyone who has made their debut on Wikipedia via this topic has started in the wrong place. There are better ways of getting used to WP editing - such as adding reliable sources to an established article or fleshing out a stub. For example, I created a page on Carlsbro that could really do with somebody writing a bit more about.
- Could you also remember sign your edits (the pencil icon at the top of edit window will add the relevant tags) as it makes it a bit easier to work out who is responding to what. Also, if you have any further comments, could I suggest they go on my talk page instead, as the discussion is getting bogged down enough as it is. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - More than a week after Breedlove's death - let's see the stat's. More than 325,000 article views (in the 5 day existance of the article); More than 330 different news articles from around the world (that are still coming out every hour or so) - Television News: KXAN; ABC News; KXAN; KXAN; CNN; CBS; Network Ten ~ Both viral video's have a combined total viewership of 5.9 million (2 Videos's; 10,000 subscribers). YouTube channels - Breedlovetv (29,000 subscribers) OurAdvice4You (64,000). Then you have celebrities such as, Kid Cudi; Kim Kardashian and Jennifer Love Hewitt tweeting about Breedlove [6]. News outlets have also commented multiple time's about Breedlove's two main channels being "popular". 11,000 viewers online watched Breedlove's funeral, courtesy of KXAN; 1,500 attended. My question - Who here can definately say with certainty that Breedlove will become - "Un"-notable in months to come? Can you also definately say that his YouTube accounts that have made him an internet personality will decrease in subscribers and viewers? Or his viral video's will decrease in views? Or simply just the fact that the top three fan-based Facebook pages on him, have a total of 105,000 "likes" - will those go down in likes too? Draw your own conclusions. -- MST☆R (Happy New Year!) 02:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is now making me believe that this nomination was very hasty at the least. What's the point of nominating this article for deletion when notability will surely be established in the weeks/days to come? Article now has 345,000+ views. Gnews plenty of results. Generic Google search lots of results. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to add that Organizations still doing articles about Ben include the Wall Street Journal, People Magazine, and National Public Radio. Please, Will Wikipedia see this is relevance?Petersontinam (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I will say this post should be kept because on the basis that wikipedia is an encyclopedia site and this is basic bio about Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insaneinnixa (talk • contribs) 03:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC) — Insaneinnixa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep Even if the biography is to be removed due to policies regarding entries for individuals the information contained here is worth keeping. It may be merged with other links if needed. His youtube posts were very powerful as it addressed one of the fundamental questions of human existence (whether god exists or not). I have been considering myself an apathetic agnostic for years until the recent death of Steve Jobs (and his final words) and the videos from this kid. Wikipedia should serve (in whatever proper way it suitable) to preserve the information surrounding the life of this individual. The article could be expanded to include citations of the key parts of the video (preservation of the youtube video is out of the control of wikipedia but preservation of the essential aspects of the video is WITHIN that control). Final note: this discussion is worth having and it is one of the fundamental aspects that makes Wikipedia existence worth of support. I have donated every year in the last 3 years in support of wikipedia and this is the first time I take time to create an user account and join a discussion. This is by no way to be constructed as an attempt to use influence as a donor to the content of wikipedia (that will kill the wikipedia concept I support) but it's my personal account of why Wikipedia is important and different from other encyclopedic sources. Being able to recognize the relevance of keeping this article (again, modified as needed) within Wikipedia is what makes it special. I presume a lot of the claims for removal are from people that want to keep Wikipedia clean from religion (I tend to be one of those) BUT I cannot dismiss a clean, honest account based on my personal bias (go now and check Huston Smith and Why Religion Matters)Petrvsco (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)— Petrvsco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete - per our actual policies, as opposed to all the glurge from single-purpose accounts and anonymous drive-bys. This is an obscure dead blogger who's getting a brief bubble of notability, a matter covered under "Subjects notable only for one event" and "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site". --Orange Mike | Talk 20:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reply -To Orange Mike- I respectfully disagree with the Policies you listed. 1. Notable for only one Event; A big part of that policy is if the person and event should have two separate articles. Also, it said that some subject specific notability guidelines provide criteria that may support the notabililty of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.
- Also, The Policy "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site." - This Policy is speaking about not using the "User" pages for blogging or networking or dating services. As far as Memorials, it is against Policy to use the Wikipedia page as a Memorial Page, which Ben Breedlove's page is clearly NOT. It is an informational page which hopefully will be around to have more INFORMATION added to it.
- Also, I may be considered a "single purpose account" so far as there has not been any time to do anything but try to defend this page, but I AM reading the Policies...all of the words and not just the blue titles. If these Policies are going to be cited as a reason to delete, it is only fair that they are completely read and not just convenient titles put forth. We could go back and forth with Policies and our interpretations of them for months, but then I would have to say that the continuous interest in this person would also put Ben squarely, solidly in the category of Relevant and Notable...Even including thoughts of people who are "Anonymous Drive By's" because they cared enough to come here and be heard the best way they knew how. I'm not sure how to prove that to you shy of demanding that someone get out there and do the research on the continual articles, relelvance and reaction...that some people who don't believe the "Keeps" just please take the time to scout around out there and see what they are referencing. If I'm frustrating you, I'm sorry...but I also feel frustrated with references to Policies that are not fully working to prove Deletion points.
- Lastly, this is a discussion page, right? The page that the Administrators are going to use in consideration of if a Wikipedia page is going to be deleted. All discussion, Policy references, and snapshots of opinion on the Notability of a Subject are surely relevant here on this page? Petersontinam (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Policy references are the primary thing a closer should take into consideration. - Users commenting out of policy that are single issue recently created accounts should imo not be counted at all in a closers consideration. Currently, I am seeing around 14 decent deletion comments and around a dozen worthwhile keep comments a weight of opinion that resolves to WP:No consensus - and what we usually do it resolve to keep and then in three months when the news has gone out of the story and there have not been any article updates we renominate it and delete it then. - Sadly wikipedia policy seems unable to deal correctly with such articles while they are of short term interest to multiple facebook users. Perhaps we can create a short term article status - newsworthy - keep for three months. Personally, I think we need to be stronger in opposing such as this facebook memorial stuff straight away rather that allowing the educational and encyclopedic aims of the project to be demeaned by such trivia. He didn't warrant a wikipedia biography before he died and he doesn't now either. - Youreallycan (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reply -You just had to say "facebook users" didn't you? I am a 46 year old woman who is so Facebook illiterate, that my daughter had to post pictures on there for me and I still have to ask my teenage son for help. I am old! But not too old and senile yet to not be able to recognize a human who deserves a place here. Can you please understand that people voting to keep may not be in the narrow category you have pigeon-holed them into? Please? Why and how is it that your personal opinion of a subject as being "facebook memorial stuff" is ENOUGH to take away the legitimacy of the subject? If you are all supposed to be academically inclined and somewhat neutral, why can't you see that a subject is noteworthy and relevant to thousands and thousands of people, even if he is not noteworthy to you? You run dangerously close in censorship and complete snobbery on what is considered "relelvant information". This is not about what a few members deem so beneath them...this is about what is relevant and notable to the World. I refuse, yes stubbornly, to believe that Wikipedia is all about ONLY things that reach some stratospheric status of snobby education that can only be a few people's OPINION of what is important enough.
- You couldn't be more correct about someone like me being here as a single issue and recently created account. I created the account so I was not anonymous...because you chastise for that also. I have tried to become familiar with this community as best I can within what is only a few days. But the hostile, snobby environment from some and complete lack of purity in trying to determine if this young man deserves a page here is nauseating. If you were truly interested in what information is relevant, you would not accuse people with a different viewpoint as being "facebook users" and their subject matter as "trivia" that is "demeaning" your PROJECT. But it is becoming overwhelmingly clear that this environment here at times is vaguely familiar of a playground where those that think they are better will not condescend to "play" with the kids who are new. Knowledge is many things to many people. An event or person who brought about more knowledge, along with changing tens of thousands of people's perception of one of the biggest questions to humans...that is notable. Period.
- Wikipedia, you'll do what you think is best...but to some of the users here: I know that legitimate Policy questions and comments were given by many and if you choose to ignore that then you are not doing what you claim to be, no matter how intellectually superior you think you are. For me, this was sincerely never intended as a place to come to get into arguments with others about the relevance of someone I believe changed people's lives and continues to do so. I feel that I have done more to shame Ben Breedlove's name by letting certain users get to me so badly. But I do know I tried; within your words, parameters, and guidelines, to bring valid points to a discussion. Petersontinam (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO1E. The individual is Breedlove, the event is his death (unless anyone can put prove that Breedlove would be notable if he was still alive today). BIO1E states: "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event." Breedman's death, however tragic, is a minor event (he's received media coverage because of the touching nature of his story, not because it was important world news) so the only article that should exist is Death of Ben Breedman. But I would argue that even that article should not exist simply because this is not encyclopedic material. Lots of things get a sudden burst of media coverage, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic, which should be the determining factor for inclusion in an encyclopedia. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Within WP:BIO1E there is an example used that I would like to borrow with a different angle-Rodney King's article. The actual event was, of course, major; but equally important was the social significance of the event and the aftermath. It addressed an important social issue, raised debate and awareness (police brutality), etc. The events relating to Ben Breedlove also address important social issues (life after death and religeous beliefs) , awareness for his illness, inspiration, and something of a cultural phenomenon- Tens of thousands of teenagers affected enough to speak out and make life changing decisions. Teens weren't the only ones affected, but they are the ones whose world involves the most Internet communication. Internet personalities are as relevant to them as non-internet personalities were to us a decade ago. The "Evening news with Tom Brokaw" is now Youtube.Like it or not, that should be respected and that change in information feed acknolwedged.
- It's too easy for some to label Ben Breedlove as just a sad or tragic event being measured up to see if it meets requirements...but without truly researching everything connected to what this event has caused, the ripples, how can it be judged so quickly? Ben is much more than a tragic event...He gave a gift that is impossible to put value on, to millions of people. The research to become aware of this doesn't really take long and you shouldn't begin to make a decision to keep or delete without taking that time. I would hope that any action as important as deletion had good faith time and research behind it by both editors and administration.
- There aren't very many articles on wikipedia that had any more than a "sudden burst of media coverage" if you really look at them. Very important people and events do not sustain full media coverage for very long...there is always new news. Does that make them less significan or in danger of being deleted? Perhaps it should be more about the wide reach, intensity, and significance of a person/event than about the length of time the event is saturated. Also, Wikipedia states that it is not a news page...which leads me to believe that it does matter when a person has significant relevance (with their peers and others) and that relevance is not dependent upon their length of news coverage but on their contribution.Petersontinam (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- keep WP:BIO1E seems to apply to people whose identity needs to be preserved because of one event, like victim of a crime. however being known for one thing, his vlog, is different from being known for his death. however if this needs to be deleted then it should be renamed to death of ben breedlove, but i think this way is better. Bouket (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep That many news sources covering this guy, makes him notable. Diverse major news sources are covering this guy, many of them listed in the article already. Dream Focus 15:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete we are not the news. The single event that provoked coverage, the death, while tragic is not significant, and we are not an obituary either. Hekerui (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Common Sense If you can remember when you were new here, then take pity..Here are some examples of articles already existing on Wikipedia. I predict that some will say that is not a reason, but please try to understand that I am using them to show you what you have already deemed noteworty, credible and relevant.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_Uncle -, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Merry -, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Really_Achieving_Your_Childhood_Dreams -, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_Cat
- You get my drift. On many articles like these, a heading titled "Social Impact" or something similar would follow. Ben Breedlove is surely as significant as any of these types of articles. Someone like Randy Pausch, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Pausch - had a similar impact as Ben did. In Mr. Pausch's article, more events happened after his death and I believe that will happen in Ben's case as well. This Wikipedia page should be here to record those events. So, a keep would be common sense if you are looking to maintain the types of pages that are already in existence. Reasons for that have been listed for deleting such as no further media coverage, or single event..well, couldn't that be applied to hundreds of articles already here with the same types of event status? Please think about this. Petersontinam (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Teenager makes You Tube videos then dies. Delete. I feel sorry for his family but this is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.106.54 (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — 92.235.106.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- If you actually want people to listen to your [non-intelligent] comment, you'd better be citing WP policies in your comment and to stop being sarcastic when it doesn't make anyone laugh. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 12:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If the above logic was to be used, then I'm afraid that Editors here are going to be very busy deleting hundreds of articles already on Wikipedia. Everything from Tyson the Skateboarding Dog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyson_(dog) to Shiro the cat who lets people put things on his head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiro_(cat). There is more to Ben Breedlove's story and event and the imformation is out there to be looked at if an Editor seriously wants to weigh this debate in the most fair and honest fashion. I don't feel that this discussion is ridiculous. I DO feel that an article on a cat who lets people put things on his head is ridiculous, but I am not going to judge that it is not relevant or worthy to many others. This is my point! Anyone who is making a decision on if Ben Breedlove's article will remain at Wikipedia...please make that decision based on Criteria and not on personal opinion.Petersontinam (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- You can't argue that the presence or absence of a related article justifies your own, since WP:Notability affects all articles equally. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reply I'm not trying to say that the presence or absence of other articles justify this one, though I know it looks like that; What I am trying to prove is that other articles passed the criteria and so should Ben's. I'm trying to show that editors here deemed these articles and the subject matter as noteworthy and relevant. I'm trying show what I believe is the common sense of Notable.Petersontinam (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. There are many articles on Wikipedia that, if given appropriate scrutiny, would not pass notability standards. It is not possible to adequately police every article at every moment. This is not a reason to add yet another inappropriate article. In other words, see WP:Other stuff exists --Crunch (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Frankly, I'd never heard of the guy before he died. Even his "This is my story" videos. Yes, it's tragic, and yes, it's moving, but I doubt seriously that he'll go down as a historically significant individual. "Wikipedia is not a memorial." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.99.175 (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — 74.37.99.175 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Reply -Respectfully, because any one of us has not heard of someone is not the reason to delete their information. I have not heard of 90-95% of the subjects on Wikipedia, but I would never suggest that they should be deleted because I have not heard of them. If there was a policy shortcut for that, I would use it. (There should be a Policy for that) Also, I don't think that many cats and dogs from videos are going to go down as "historically significant individuals", yet they have their place here on Wikipedia. This person, Ben Breedlove, has made a significant impact and it grows with each passing day. Please recognize the social and cultural event that has happened.Petersontinam (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Very Strong Keep He was on TV, had 2 videos viral due to his sad death. Even though it is just 2, it is important. Even if it is two.76.254.27.221 (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.254.27.221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep I am seeing reliable coverage by multiple sources. Even if someone argues that there are not enough sources to meet the requirement or that it fails BLP one event, this is an example where WP:IAR would apply. There have been over 370,000 people who have come to Wikipedia for information about this person. Removing this page would be hurtful to the encyclopedia because the high number of people seeking information on Ben Breedlove would not get it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- By that argument, we could introduce a lot of unencyclopedic material just because thousands of people want to know about it. Thousands of people are seeking information about celebrities' sex lives, but that's not an excuse to provide that sort of information. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
-
- Reply But the reason TO have an article about a subject that thousands of people are seeking is...??? I have seen policy go back and forth, over and under, and around and around. When proof is needed of Ben's relevancy and then given, someone says it is a lone event. When someone cites policy that covers that, someone says this is not a memorial site. When proof is given that this is not a memorial article, then someone says Wikipedia is not a news site. When proof is given that this subject is more than a news event, then someone says they have never heard of him. When it is pointed out that 370,000 people HAVE heard of him and have viewed his article, then someone says "thousands of people are seeking information on celebrities' sex lives." ??? And yet if I point out that an article about a cat video has been deemed noteworthy here, someone quotes a policy that you can't compare articles.
- Do you know what this looks and sounds like to the outside world? It looks like some members of this online encyclopedia are on a mission to not let this article stay and their reasons are weak.
- Everything you have asked for has been addressed. Have you done the outside work of researching this? Deleting an article should require as much responsibility from users as creating one. I would hope that Deletes have been put through fairly, after taking the time to check on the relevance and noteworthiness of the subject.
- The petition at Change.org has over 200 signatures and the "reasons for signing" I am reading deal with a profound change to their lives. As well as the awareness increased for Ben's illness. The locations from the signees have been almost every state in the United States, and at least 7 other Countries.
- If you can still state that this person is not Notable, that the after-effect phenomenon is not also significant...after all the numbers- - numbers of articles, numbers of articles that reference Wikipedia as a source of information, number of views to the Wikipeida article (these numbers are not weakening), numbers from the videos, numbers of people that have become involved......Then I have to come to the conclusion that there would be no proof possible for a Wiki member who has decided that they personally don't want this article. I have come to the conclusion that it's not really about being noteworthy, but about some selective process that can bounce policy shortcuts around until everyone is dizzy. At the very least, this article should be given time. Petersontinam (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: And, by the logic presented by Ryan Vesey, if Ben Breedlove really has long-lasting notability, there should be hundreds, if not thousands, of independent news sources documenting his life, death, and impact on the world. A missing Wikipedia article won't mean that people can't easily find information online about Ben Breedlove. --Crunch (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- *Comment Reply -Crunch, is that the logic that Wikipedia uses then? That what does it matter if an article is deleted, there are other sources of information out there? Weird, I did not get that impression from the hours of reading I have done to try and understand the Policies, guidelines, and help sources.Petersontinam (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reply. No, obviously that's not the criteria that Wikipedia uses. My point was that if people will be lost for information if a Wikipedia articles on Ben Breedlove doesn't exist, as has been argued here, then he probably isn't that notable to begin with. If he were, there would be plenty of other sources for information. The argument that a Wikipedia article is necessary for people looking for information about Ben Breedlove is contradictory to the claim that he is vastly notable. --Crunch (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reply - Crunch, I truly don't think that anyone said they will be "lost for information" if Wikipedia deletes Ben's Article. There are plenty of other sources of information, which has been pointed out repeatedly to support Criteria required. What I have seen is people claiming that there should be an article on Wikipedia. The absolute main objective of this discussion page is to support or not support the deletion nomination's claims. Notability was the key claim in the deletion nomination, along with if it is an unworthy single event and Memorial.
- To me, you just saying that somehow he isn't notable because people are looking for information on him sounds incredibly weird and backward. Seriously, are you saying that a notable person is someone who would NOT have thousands of people looking for further information on him? I am not being sarcastic, and do not understand your logic at all. I have read your sentence 4 times and I am not "getting it." By the way, the article itself has had plenty of support saying it is not a Memorial and is well written and sourcedPetersontinam (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reply. No, obviously that's not the criteria that Wikipedia uses. My point was that if people will be lost for information if a Wikipedia articles on Ben Breedlove doesn't exist, as has been argued here, then he probably isn't that notable to begin with. If he were, there would be plenty of other sources for information. The argument that a Wikipedia article is necessary for people looking for information about Ben Breedlove is contradictory to the claim that he is vastly notable. --Crunch (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- *Comment Reply -Crunch, is that the logic that Wikipedia uses then? That what does it matter if an article is deleted, there are other sources of information out there? Weird, I did not get that impression from the hours of reading I have done to try and understand the Policies, guidelines, and help sources.Petersontinam (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability is established. Whoever wrote the "Death and aftermath" section understands how to source an article. American Eagle (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, but provisionally. I'm tempted to think this will eventually get deleted as a WP:ONEEVENT biography, but there is simply too much noise about on the topic right now to make an informed decision on the matter. The article is impeccably sourced and quite well written, so I do not see any harm in waiting (say) three months and having another look then. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC),
- Strong Keep - because it is notable. There are a lot of sources, it passes Wikipedia:Notability. Cissy15 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - No question about it, the article does not meet notability standards / does have the 'one event' status. That there have been lots of hits on the page (and comments here) is highly probably connected to the change.org petition and, once this immediate furore dies down it will be even clearer that the article was unwarranted in the first place. There is no long-lasting notability here. --AlisonW (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the article, I see references sourced from the Daily Mail, the Washington Post and Fox News amongst others. While WP:BLP1E is still up for debate, the single event itself certainly seems to have been covered in multiple, reliable sources from my point of view. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reply -In referencce to the Change.org petition; while every signature is legitimate, valid, and underlines the relevance of Ben Breedlove, there are 221 at this moment. That could not possibly account for 30,000 hits in one day. Also, the petition was created, by me, long after hundreds of thousands of views of Ben Breedlove's article had happened. As much as I would love to think that I helped to contribute to the mass amounts of views, I know realistically that the petition had nothing to do with it. The number of views are from people already fully aware of Ben Breedlove & who were compelled to seek information on him through a search engine. Wikipedia is usually the source at the top of the list that comes up when you search, so I would imagine that people choose it first.
- To head off comments citing that Search Engine results are not criteria, please let me remind you that the context of that policy is referencing the fact that the amount of hits can be skewed by technology trying to make numbers look larger. Can't find the shortcut right now. I take that to be meaning don't always trust that the numbers are accurate, as opposed to that numbers are not important.
- Also, please consider this-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GEOSCOPE "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." I realize this is not a weather disaster, but there has been impact over a widespread societal group. Also this-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EFFECT "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable."Petersontinam (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- A vast amount of interest in being generated, the most sensible editors seem to suggest a review of the article in a month or two's time. Immediate deletion would provoke a very strong reaction. We also have the difficulty of determining whether Wikipedia itself is notable seeing that its contributors are all male and aged 25, on average. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.172.15.183 (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — 101.172.15.183 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - Why are so many people citing BLP1E here, in a case where it obviously does not apply? Swarm X 20:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- reply - okay, I'll also refer you to WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NODEADLINE and WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reply -Orangemike, the information under WP:CRYSTAL states "It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses." I would take that and what I read under Crystal Ball as trying to predict the future of a subject either way would be fruitless and inappropriate. Many "delete" votes here have claimed that this article will not matter (some have said it doesn't matter to them already) in the near future. I realize now that I shouldn't try and predict either. But 10 days out there are still new stories and important articles such as the one involving HCMA and the HEARTs act reported from the Wall Street Journal today. I'm not trying to predict, but that can be a valuable link to this article because the HEARTs Act became more significant due to Ben. He is a catalyst for the extra awareness that may push that Bill faster through Congress...his event brought attention to it. If I could figure out how to add it to the article, I would...but I'm struggling terribly. The point is that this article needs time. If I have misunderstood you, I am truly sorry.Petersontinam (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pete, see the posts by people like JohnWBarber (below), predicting that "this is a rising meme" and "there will be books written about this kid", etc. This is why I invoked WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UPANDCOMING. This could be forgotten in a month or two, or it may actually amount to something. If the latter, no problem; we create a new article on solid ground (not blog posts and one-cause websites). There is no deadline in Wikipedia, and the fact that people want to use this kid's death to promote their WP:NOBLECAUSE is totally irrelevant. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- The article was not created on "blogposts and one-cause websites". The news references were listed many times in this discussion...even with shortcuts. The references listed in the article are valid news organizations. A discussion on policy about which news organization are considered pure in the day and age of mostly online media coverage is a discussion for another time. Right now, Wall Street Journal, Herald Sun, National Public Radio, People, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, and Fox News are considered legitimate news sources and not one-cause websites or Blogspots. Yes, predicting has happened on both sides of the issue...I also did it without realizing it. I also cited a relevant article that helps prove notablitly and happened 10 days out, but you won't say a word about that. The logic to hastily delete an article because it can be brought back does not make any sense to me when the article is proving to be notable. Because the subject matter of the article has ties to goodness, religeon, and hope is proving to be a handicap to it here. This place called Wikipedia...Where Jim Wales imagined a place where "every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we're doing."[49] I am not so naive as to think that there shouldn't be strict guidelines for how that human knowledge earns its place here...but again, restricting knowledge here because some deem it beneath them, or trivial to them while a majority (out there in the world) feel that it has true substance; that is wrong. It's wrong.
- Also, This discussion page has been an example of many Policies being interpreted very differently. Nobody is perfect, but with the changes in our world on how we receive news, the global connectivity, and the speed in which we receive it, Policies may need to be tweaked constantly to keep up.
- Also, Be careful when you say someone is "using this kid's death to promote their noble cause." That really comes across as ignorant. In fact, the snideness in general that I have seen when referencing a human life and death here has been atrocious. Here in public where the world can see what you have written...from the people who are supposed to know better.Petersontinam (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pete, see the posts by people like JohnWBarber (below), predicting that "this is a rising meme" and "there will be books written about this kid", etc. This is why I invoked WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UPANDCOMING. This could be forgotten in a month or two, or it may actually amount to something. If the latter, no problem; we create a new article on solid ground (not blog posts and one-cause websites). There is no deadline in Wikipedia, and the fact that people want to use this kid's death to promote their WP:NOBLECAUSE is totally irrelevant. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Hundreds of thousands of people have shown some level of interest in the subject. After I saw the news pieces about him, I came here to find more info. Two of my friends did the same. This is what Wikipedia is for... to give people more info on popular issues. Breedlove and his story are quite famous now. If that's not "notable," really, what is Wikipedia for? Sh76us (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Per User:Dravecky above. Meets notability requirements. Renominating after the emotions have died down might be a good idea. Killiondude (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strongest Possible Keep The subject of the article has been the focus of extensive U.S. media coverage, which has been properly cited in the article. The arguments for deletion are incredibly ignorant. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I think this should be a biography article, but let's consider it as an event article (which is an alternative that policies encourage us to think about). It's very likely that the source coverage of Ben Breedlove is not some passing event, but one that will get continuing coverage because it touches on subjects such as near-death experiences, religious belief in an afterlife and viral videos. Articles in newspapers and magazines, as well as books and probably academic journals as well, will likely cite Breedlove as an example in various contexts. It is easy to expect that, for instance, Ben Breedlove's descriptions of his near-death experiences being cited by articles. Should it be an event article rather than a biography article? No. Who would really be surprised, given all the interest in this, that books would be published about Breedlove's life -- not just his death, and not just his death and the videos, but his entire, short life? His near-death experiences are very likely to be explored by sources independently of what he himself wrote about them in the videos. That indicates a depth of coverage worthy of an article. His life as a whole is going to get coverage in sources that themselves try to balance each aspect of his life (that is, we're inevitably going to read about what he was like, what he liked to do and other challenges in his life in biographical accounts in various media), and it's a stretch to call his various near-death experiences together with his videos about them and then his death as being all one "event." The circumstances around the article are serious enough that we'll have lasting coverage for years to come. Whatever is going on in his Afterlife, he's an "after-death" celebrity. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- KEEP i'm belgian and wanted to learn more about Ben. He's not anymore a random person. Keep the page to inform others about why he isn't just a random guy. (Nhintjens (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)) (Nhintjens (talk))— Nhintjens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- KEEP . . . HCM is a serious and not well known conditiion that kills young people every year. My nephew has HCM and had to have an ICD installed about 5 years ago, and replaced just this past month. If having Ben's story told on Wiki helps get the message out to those with HCM, then what harm is done here? P.S. I found this site on my own and did not come here at the request or suggestion of anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeshareVon (talk • contribs) 05:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — TimeshareVon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Wikipedia does not exist to promote your cause, however noble it may be. Abuse of Wikipedia to promote a cause, however noble, is spamming. Full stop. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reply -Orangemike, there is a distinct difference between promoting a cause and the actual fact that someone notable ties two pieces of information together. On the Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) article, Ben Breedlove is now listed as someone notable who was affected by this disease, as well as the diease being appropriately explained on Ben's article. I don't think the person above was at all trying to promote their cause or spamming. The definition of spamming http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spamming&redirect=no , as I understand it, is putting forth wide distributions of advertising in marketing a product. Would you consider that the person above was stating a personal experience and only trying to underscore their thoughts on the importance of both HCM and Ben Breedlove? I hardly think they were trying to market a product. I also was not trying to market a product, but was pointing out a press reslease. Because of Ben Breedlove's impact, HCMA is trying to increase awareness and further medical research of this disease. That makes Ben notable and significant when a high profile medical organization, who are involved in introducing legislation to congress, believes Ben to be a widely recognized figure. Just because you say "however noble", does not take the sting away of accusing that person (or me) of spamming.Petersontinam (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- clarification - within Wikipedia, we use the term "spamming" to describe any form of promotional editing, be it shamelessly commercial or for some honorable purpose, in part because decent human beings associate the term with repugnant behavior and do not want to think of themselves as spammers. That's why we have the essay at WP:NOBLECAUSE. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- ?? - Orangemike, I went to that Essay link. The nutshell of it was about writing an article on an organization, not trying to prove notabilty on a discussion page. I do not believe that the poster was spamming. If I was, I had no idea that I was. My intentions were to prove relevance, link two important pieces of information. If I mention a bill going to congress, I wasn't trying to spam with that either...again trying to prove significance of Ben Breedlove's impact as seen in an article HCMA Articleon most news agency websites. Again, there is more to an essay or Policy than just the title. When I read further, I have been suprised they are being cited as reasons for deletion or, as with this last one, as doing spamming.Petersontinam (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- clarification - within Wikipedia, we use the term "spamming" to describe any form of promotional editing, be it shamelessly commercial or for some honorable purpose, in part because decent human beings associate the term with repugnant behavior and do not want to think of themselves as spammers. That's why we have the essay at WP:NOBLECAUSE. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not exist to promote your cause, however noble it may be. Abuse of Wikipedia to promote a cause, however noble, is spamming. Full stop. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 No consensus. Feel free to renominate this page if it does not qualify Wikipedia standards. Whenaxis about talk contribs 23:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Non-admin closure.
Mark Peterson-Perez[edit]
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
Update - There is an issue with the name of the individual. According to the author the correct spelling is Mark Petersen-Perez, not Mark Peterson-Perez. Rather than complicate the AfD I have moved the article Mark Peterson-Perez to Mark Petersen-Perez. reddogsix (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Mark Peterson-Perez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor activist lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. The article references appear to be passing mentions of the individual. reddogsix (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Each of two sufficient WP:BIO conditions are met - Petersen-Perez (1)"has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject", OR (2) is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Either one of these would be enough. In fact, both hold. (1)is established in the reference section list in the article. Quotes were provided in the references to show that the article subject is the same as the source subject. The second sufficient condition is met since the first four sources are recorded front page news stories directly about Petersen-Perez. WP:BIO is satisfied. PPdd (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I see no evidence of any significant front page or any "significant coverage" of the individual in reliable sources. The sources you have added to the article are basically passing mentions of the individual. You are correct that the individual need not be national to be notable, but to be notable he must meet the criteria in WP:BIO or an associated WP:NOTABILITY guideline. The article still appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG. reddogsix (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Side comment - The original apparant lack of any GHits is partially due to offline sources, and also partly my own fault since I originaly spelled the name in the article title wrong. PPdd (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I only see 36 GHits and 1 GNEWs for "Mark Peterson-Perez" and 57 GHits and 1 GNEWS for "Mark Petersen-Perez". reddogsix (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- I get "About 2,900 results (0.08 seconds)" for "Mark Petersen-Perez" and "About 118 results (0.09 seconds)" for "Mark Peterson-Perez". With the incorrect spelling, I get "1 result (0.24 seconds)" for "Mark Peterson-Perez", and "1 result (0.31 seconds) "for 'Mark Peterson-Perez'".
- Side comment - The original apparant lack of any GHits is partially due to offline sources, and also partly my own fault since I originaly spelled the name in the article title wrong. PPdd (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The subject appears to fail WP:BIO. I also have concerns regarding WP:SOAPBOX and the application of WP:NOTNEWS to a biographical article. Piecing together factoids (i.e. true but insignificant information) of individuals from local news articles is not enough to pass the various notability guidelines. Location (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reply comment - I removed WP:Soapbox and WPNOTNEWS[20] put in by a new editor. I have substantially changed the article since its creation (under a different subject title), which did indeed have a WP:UNDUE number factoids. But the only "factoid" now in the article is that he is a financial analyst. PPdd (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- First of all, let me state that the term “factoid” was not meant to be derogatory to the subject or his work. The point is that more than newspapers mentions are necessary to establish a person’s notability. This is particularly true when the individual is not the actual subject of the newspaper reports AND when the newspaper reports are confined to a small geographic region (a city in this case) AND when there is a distinct lack of other types of published sources. If this were allowed, it would be possible, for example, to create articles for every high school coach or athlete who gets a blurb in the local rag for his or her accomplishments at last night’s game. I guess an argument could be made that they should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but I think it's fair to say that the consensus would be against it.
- Secondly, I agree that a subject does not necessarily require “national significance” to be notable, but I think the broader point was that not all verifiable information is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia since it considers the enduring notability of persons and events and caters to a wider audience. This article states that the subject “is a LOCAL government watchdog, political activist, financial analyst, and publisher of the online Palo Alto Free Press”, "is a LOCAL political advocate for the homeless”, “well known LOCALLY for using the local platforms of communication and petition for redress”, and “well known to persons who attend Palo Alto City Council meetings.” [Emphasis mine.] Not all subjects need to have national significance to be considered notable, however, that does not mean that subjects with only local significance are notable. Location (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- 1. Why are you calling the newspaper articles now included"mentions" of him, and saying "the individual is not the actual subject of the newspaper reports"? (Your comment might have been written before I added the articles directly on him, so we can strike this part of the discussion if it was.)
- 2. "Local" is in no way a necessary consideration in WP:BIO. A historian researching local platforms of petitioning the local governments would want an encyclopedia that has information on notable persons in this area. Whether or not that person later achieves notability on a different level of government would be irrelevant to such a historian using the encyclopedia. PPdd (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Local news is not enough. If he was really of national significance, there would be other coverage. SL93 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Striken comment and discussion of it
|
|---|
|
|
- Keep - WP:BIO's standards. "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."
- "Worthy of notice" Clarence Earl Gideon was a person worthy of notice, why because he refused to become a part of the status quo. His actions caused a shift of the entire judicial system as we know it today. And he started out as a single voice.
- "If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in prison with a pencil and paper to write a letter to the Supreme Court; and if the Supreme Court had not taken the trouble to look at the merits in that one crude petition among all the bundles of mail it must receive every day, the vast machinery of American law would have gone on functioning undisturbed. But Gideon did write that letter; the court did look into his case; he was re-tried with the help of competent defense counsel; found not guilty and released from prison after two years of punishment for a crime he did not commit. And the whole course of legal history has been changed." Robert Kennedy
- Petersen-Perez did not sit down. He stood up before local politicians to redress his grievances and concerns head on, and in the process lost four jobs.
- Petersen-Perez without any legal experience nor background filed a similar petition, but in his case, before the California Supreme Court in defense of his first amendment rights to criticize government officials. Case Case No: S174520 What is "worthy of notice" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" in that, in filling his petition we no of know other private citizen or persons to have been found to challenge a municipal government attorney on First Amendment issues.ManicalCritic (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
KeepComment - As a leading anti-taser activist and publisher, as copious sources indicate in a quick swing through cyberspace. That he is an individual of local fame (or infamy, depending upon one's politics) is neither here nor there. This article got PRODded by the nominator less than 4 hours after creation and the edit history shows a complaint that the nominator also pulled off a CONSTRUCTION banner by the creator just 37 hours after last edit. I'm left wondering what is the rush here... I've been to Palo Alto a number of times; it's not a po-dunk berg in the middle of nowhere, but rather a significant city that is part of the San Francisco bay area, so complaints of "local only" coverage should not be give excessive weight. The article does have serious style issues, but I believe that this is essentially a subject worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I want to emphasize that this article has serious content problems, to the extent that I'm striking the Keep and making it a Comment. I can see the viability of blowing this piece up and starting over at some point in the future. I do still believe the subject is encyclopedia-worthy, however. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Carrite, could you specify any content problems you think still need addressing to change back to a keep vote? Did these edits address your concern? Thanks. PPdd (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I want to emphasize that this article has serious content problems, to the extent that I'm striking the Keep and making it a Comment. I can see the viability of blowing this piece up and starting over at some point in the future. I do still believe the subject is encyclopedia-worthy, however. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Collapse Soapboxing by anonymous editor unrelated to AFD discussion
|
|---|
|
- Keep, I don't think it can be disputed that Peterson-Perez (or however his name might be spelt) is a notable figure in the politics of a significant city. With that said, the current state of the article is really awful and in my opinion the entire thing needs to be scrapped and rewritten with NPOV in mind. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC).
- Keep No real concerns over notability but serious concerns over POV. Article needs to be re-written from a more neutral point of view. Pol430 talk to me 16:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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.