Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Gibbs (schoolboy)

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. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 00:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Gibbs (schoolboy)[edit]

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

Two sentence stub about a child who committed suicide. One of the two references (the one available online) simply notes the suicide. The other (to which I don't have access to verify) apparently states that there was an inquiry by the British government. This is not enough to satisfy notability requirements. Horologium (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The death of this person was a sensation at the time - that's why there was a government commission of enquiry. There were questions in the House and press coverage such as this. Notability does not expire and there are obvious alternatives to deletion. The nomination does not seem compliant with our deletion policy. Warden (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Warden. It's nice to do so from time to time. Yes, the article needs expansion, but it contains sufficient verifiable notability to remain.. Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be perfectly content with renaming it to the child's suicide. That is the notable aspect, not the child himself. Fiddle Faddle 13:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete All references given - both of them in the article (one can search the second one for the mention: [1]) and the one above from the Spectator - are on the school, not the boy, who gets only the briefest mention in each. Not the significant coverage needed for the GNG. This may merit a mention in Christ's Hospital as part of its history but there's not enough on the boy for a standalone article by a long way.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a good source here. Whether or not the boy is notable his suicide certainly seems to be. Moving the page ~~to The suicide of William Gibbs~~ would be one option. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As pointed out there is very clear evidence that the suicide of this boy passes GNG, and in any case something that results in a Parliamentary Inquiry will always be notable (if it were not notable at the time there would have been no inquiry, and the report of an inquiry itself creates notability). The relevant document is the report of the Christ's Hospital Inquiry Commission 1877. I agree that The suicide of William Gibbs would seem to be the best title, though if somebody has access to the report itself then a better alternative might emerge. But those are editing matters. --AJHingston (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to death of William Gibbs (not the suicide of William Gibbs, we shouldn't overemphasise the sui- part and the the isn't required.). There is a reference in The Times (Christ's Hospital. (News) The Times Saturday, Aug 11, 1877; pg. 8; Issue 29018; col A ) which gives further details. Basically, it seems the boy committed suicide after receiving unfair discipline as a pupil of the English public school system, which was notoriously tough - "if it doesn't kill you it will make you stronger" attitude that inevitably a few thrived in and a few failed in. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Suicide of William Gibbs. Sufficient sources have now been identified to meet WP:GNG. I take the point that normally we wouldn't want to over-emphasise the suicide part particularly in the case of relatively recent deaths when we have the feelings of relatives to consider. However, 136 years on this is now a historical event and had it not been suicide it wouldn't have been notable. Therefore, I don't see any real benefit in obfuscating the key issue. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2013 (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.