Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Whitrick (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Kevin Whitrick}} ([{{fullurl:Kevin Whitrick|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Whitrick (2nd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Minor news event from 2007 with no evidence of long-term impact. Violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. *** Crotalus *** 18:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• This entry should probably follow the same fate as Brandon Vedas, also currently up for deletion. Either keep it or merge it to Internet suicide, which is currently only about online suicide pacts. Hairhorn (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Enough coverage in third party sources to be worth a brief standalone article. See also Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

:*I'm not convinced Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy is all that similar to the page up for deletion; that's also about a court case covering issues of privacy. At any rate there are lots of wiki pages for people notable only for their deaths, despite guidelines like WP:ONEEVENT. It all hinges on the significance of the event itself. Hairhorn (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This is clearly WP:ONEVENT. A non-notable person commits suicide (which isn't that uncommon) in front of a bunch of losers who actually sit and watch it. Where is the notability? Then the ratings hungry media decides to cover it long enough to give the guy the 15 minutes he never had in life. Then they move on to something else. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The reason given above misses the point. I live in the UK and can remember the huge controversy and media coverage that this event caused at the time. The article meets WP:GNG, although it does deal primarily with the controversy surrounding his death, which has become part of Internet folklore.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• No, I don't miss your point at all. I just hold a different view. It doesn't matter to me how many words newspapers decided to waste on this one event, it is still one event. It isn't a historic event, like a presidential assassination etc, it is an oddity that made people curious and gave them something to chatter about. It was WP:RECENTISM when the papers filled space with it, now it is a non-notable event that should be sliding into the obscurity it deserves except that some want it to be memorialized in Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Enough reliable coverage. Alefbe (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, this was a minor news event about a sad incident. General announcement (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Whitrick (2nd nomination)||}}

• Retitle and maybe merge to an article on this sort of thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Retitle/Merge Rather than argue over a full delete, it should be possible to merge the information here with another article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Very notable event with many Google hits and news references. Note that this has survived past AfDs and Brandon Vedas, the article listed at the top of this nomination, has survived 3 AfDs. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, the Darwin Award candidate Brandon Vedas survived AfD with a no consensus, but couldn't survive his own stupidity. Why we feel the need to memorialize these people boggles me. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• The existence of a Wikipedia page is no more a "memorial" than the page for Pol Pot is a memorial for him. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• That doesn't even make sense? Pol Pot was notable. He was notable as a head of a nation. This guy wasn't notable before he killed himself and I don't find his suicide to be that notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Fine, then use Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as the example instead of Pol Pot. That page is certainly not a "memorial" to them. Perhaps you don't find the suicide notable, but the coverage the event has received in the media proves otherwise. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Internet suicide is a phenomenon that passes WP:GNG. It might be better to deal with all of the notable cases in one article, rather than spreading them out and having WP:ONEEVENT criticisms.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:25, 22 July 2009 (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.