Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (6th nomination)

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 keep with a side of horseradish. Enigma^msg 08:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy

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

Per WP:INHERITED, WP:1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. This child lived a couple of days, and not trying to sound callous, but the only thing he did is die a Kennedy. And an infant Kennedy, at that. Any notability he had was because of who is parents were, and that alone is not enough to meet WP:GNG.

Per policy: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."

Other than the importance the infant's death held to his parents and other family, there is no importance attached to the death itself. A personal tragedy for the family, yes - but not a tragedy that affected anything beyond general, momentary sympathy for the family from those who read about it in the newspaper.

Worth a section in the Kennedy Family article, worth content inclusion in the JFK and Jackie Kennedy articles, but not worthy of a stand-alone encyclopedia article because it only has emotional and dramatic, not encyclopedic, value. Wikipedia is not meant to be a repository of novellas. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and I don't understand why we have to go through a sixth nomination on this. The fifth was beating a dead horse already. Ample reasons were given why the guidelines cited in the nomination don't apply. Nothing has changed since the last nomination. The subject was widely covered through two major events—his birth and his death—and besides that he is an index case still used and cited in the medical field. --Laser brain (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing has changed since the last nomination." Correct. The article subject didn't get any more notable and neither did the fact of his birth and death. And it won't. Because it's a 1E and notability is inherited article, that's why. It's not possible for the article subject to ever reach the notability required to meet WP:GNG. At least with article subjects who actually lived a life before they died, or those who are dead and can gain notability, there's an argument for keeping the article because it can evolve. This article will never evolve past being 1E. "The subject was widely covered through two major events—his birth and his death" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news agency. Just because something is "covered" (widely or otherwise) that doesn't make it encyclopedic subject matter. Plenty of things are covered widely by news on a day-to-day basis. Do we make encyclopedia articles about these things simply because they have been "covered widely"? Considering such, where's the Wikipedia article on today's celebrity gossip covered all over the internet (today's version of "news coverage")? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And this is why INHERITED is such a lame essay. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Laser brain. The infant's death had an influence which has not attenuated with time. It's time to give up this odd crusade. Kablammo (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this by all reasonable measures is a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E. There was nothing of long-lasting encyclopedic value outside of perhaps living for less than 48 hours. There's also WP:NOTGENEALOGY to keep in mind as well as WP:NOTMEMORIAL from WP:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a Presidential family history site or a Kennedy family history site yet many people sadly are too often overly lenient in opting to keep articles like this just because of family affiliations or a singular passing event that only affects a certain group of people (family in this case) for very long. The sheer number of references discussing him doesn't change this and mentioning them seems like WP:MASK. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination claims this was "not a tragedy that affected anything beyond general, momentary sympathy for the family". But that's clearly false. I'll let the authors of this paper, published in Neonatology explain why: "The death of the son of the American President accelerated the development and deployment of infant ventilators, micro-blood gas analysis and umbilical artery catheterization, and led to the development of intensive care for newborns in the 1960s on both sides of the Atlantic." The expected birth of a child to a sitting President was a significant news story, as was his death. Alone, perhaps, that would be a footnote to the story of his parents. But that journal quote is from 2013. This death changed a major field of medicine. The child involved, as the sum of that change and, yes, the celebrity watchers of the day, is notable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, these discussions often hinge around "lasting impact". Medical research aside, in 2013 the New York Times considered Patrick's story sufficiently important to publish a 50-year retrospective. So did ABC News. Steven Levingston, the Washington Post nonfiction book editor, actually wrote a biography of Patrick! And make no mistake, although that was exclusively e-published, it wasn't self-published; Diversion Books is a legitimate publishing house. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – There have been five previous deletion discussions. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the two most recent (4 and 5 years ago) were "no consensus". That long ago and both without a consensus makes this worth looking at again. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the most recent was less than 3 years ago, opened by you, and there was no consensus to delete. This means you are unable to accept people's reasons for keeping the article, but that doesn't mean anything has changed. Those reasons still apply. --Laser brain (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes - 3 and 4 years ago. Regardless... And no, me accepting/not accepting the reasons of others has nothing to do with this AfD. But, if you want to turn your logic around, perhaps those who insist keep based on the previous keep !votes are unable to accept the previous delete !votes and logical, policy-based rationale behind them? Those logical, policy-based reasons still apply, after all. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That logic doesn't apply. The default state of an article is to be kept unless there is a compelling reason to delete, not the other way around. That's why when an AfD is closed as no consensus, the article is kept. You are incorrectly interpreting and applying the essays and guidelines you are citing. --Laser brain (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Living for 2 days does not make you notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I claim that this is actually incorrect and my claim can be trivially supported. -The Gnome (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Laserbrain. Ross-c (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know why people re-nominate this thinking the outcome is going to be different. But I suspect none of the nominators were alive in 1963 and they lack historical perspective. Patrick Bouvier Kennedy : hyaline membrane disease :: Lou Gehrig : amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. - Nunh-huh 19:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator here and with the last one. I was very much alive and cognizant in 1963, quite aware of the goings-on in the Kennedy White House and family, remember where I was when the news came on the radio JFK had been shot, watched Ruby kill Oswald, watched the funeral, and so-on. Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything in relation to this nom, policy, and the fact that notability remains uninherited. That you're attempting to use emotion to determine whether the article should stay only proves the point that policy and true encyclopedic quality is being abandoned in Wikipedia daily for invective and emotion-driven decision making by those who see themselves as encyclopedia editors. Makes no sense. By the way, Lou Gehrig's notability came from baseball, his disease was secondary and would have gone unnoticed by the public had he not been a professional athlete. JFK's infant son who died - his notability stems from his parents, not the cause of his death. Ask the average person what the child died from and they wouldn't be able to tell you. Has HMD been nicknamed after Patrick Kennedy as in "Lou Gehrig's Disease? The answer, of course, is 'no'. QED: the child's notability is inherited, period. And that's against notability policy, in case you forgot. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you don't have the excuse of being recently born to explain your repeated nomination. I don't see anything in my comments here that's emotional, and much in yours that is. Your "logic", however, is faulty and specious, and I am unpersuaded by it. - Nunh-huh 22:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and whatever the opposite of salt is. I have no opinion on the merits, but five refused nominations is more than enough.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last sentence of the lede invalidates all the nominator’s arguments: “the Kennedy infant's death brought hyaline membrane disease (HMD) into the public consciousness and inspired further research.” Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (a) on account of independent notability as evidenced by the opening paragraph, and separately (b) as a matter of principle. Five nominations!? When do we stop AfDs for the same article? After 100 nominations? The mind boggles. -The Gnome (talk)
Keep the event (of a child of the sitting President of the United States dying in infancy) is notable, as the multitude of references suggest. I don't really see the point of renaming it so it's not technically a biography. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the idea of a Death of Patrick Bouvier Kennedy page rather than simply a page with his name by the "renaming it so it's not technically a biography" bit? It wouldn't exactly be an unheard of practice given things like Murder of Ennis Cosby. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose such a change. The first birth of a child to a sitting President and First Lady in over a century was itself a topic of considerable media attention. Alone, that might not have earned Patrick notability, but in the wider context, it means the article should not be exclusively titled about his death. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, I think that is an excellent idea and solution. The child's 36 hour life doesn't merit a biography article. If his death did, indeed, spark more research and/or public awareness re: the condition he died from, that merits an article. How do you propose we go about getting this change made? Do it from here? From the article talk page with an RfC?

Squeamish Ossifrage, biographical articles are supposed to be an account of someone's life. It wasn't the infant's life that meant something, it was his death. A title change in this case is quite appropriate. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that Cosby article as well as Murder of Martha Moxley, what one should do is place emphasis on the death above all else. Something we could do in this case is have text along the lines of "Patrick Bouvier Kennedy died on August 9, 1963 after living for only two days" and then discuss what led to him dying so soon and perhaps the response it prompted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This solves the problem of it being a biography encyclopedia article, as there's simply no biography there (which has always bothered me and been the reason why I've nominated it this time and previously). It also solves the need to have the story "out there" from the medical research and development aspect. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Levingston certainly disagrees, since he published what is essentially a biography of this subject. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose such a renaming. It is not necessary and places the focus exclusively on his death. Kablammo (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His death is the only thing about him specifically as a person that's truly worth noting at all, though, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A title in Wikipedia ought to be something that someone can know how to look up. In order to look something up, you shouldn't have to guess what a title a random Wikipedian has concocted for it; you should simply look up what it logically would be called. Why should someone have to guess that an article about Patrick Bouvier Kennedy is called, say "The death of Patrick Bouvier Kennedy" vs. "Patrick Bouvier Kennedy's effect on neonatal healthcare" vs. "Patrick Bouvier Kennedy's impact on medical research"? It's also a bit odd to say that someone's death isn't part of his biography, since it clearly is. There are plenty of people with articles here who are known mostly because of the circumstances of their deaths. - Nunh-huh 21:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is significant coverage in reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 03:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a well-developed page reflecting available significant coverage of the topic. The move (if needed, of which I'm not convinced) can be discussed via RM on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage and sources. -- Dane ^talk 19:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. We've been through this many times before, there is no reason that he is less notable than before.Jacona (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wading thru the snow to an inevitable close, another waste of time for afd watchers. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.