Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenden Foster (2nd 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brenden Foster[edit]

WP:BIO one event. 2nd nomination after the intitial reaction wears off -Glorydays203 (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ONEEVENT says to cover the event rather than the person, but since the person's media attention is the event, it can't properly be covered without writing the biography. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hate to be the Grinch here, but WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS, and the news -- under a hundred thousand dollars in additional donations for the homeless -- is relatively trivial. If the Brenden Foster Food Drive has legs and becomes independently notable, and isn't just an ephemeral one-season event, the material in the article can be moved there then. The justifications for keeping it in the original nom were all WP:ILIKEIT. THF (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the reasoning that Wikipedia is not a news outlet, then perhaps you should consider transwikification to WikiNews. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I'm iffy on this one. The death of this individual, or the fundraiser, or the illness, or several other portions of this story (Seahawks paying for funeral, etc...) could be considered distinct events, so I'm not 100% sure that WP:ONEEVENT should apply. However, I'm not convinced the article should be about the individual rather than the response to the individual, so my support for keeping the article is merely support for the status quo. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough diverse and noteworthy facts in the article to merit inclusion.Vulture19 (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources here covering several notable events (the initial wish, the food drive, his death etc) involving this person over some weeks so one event doesnt apply. --neon white talk 01:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The multiple events spawning from his actions are no less numerous or notable than the first time the article was nominated. Neier (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2009 (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.