Talk:Death of Gloria D. Davis

Informationectomies justified by BLP are obviously innappropriate to articles about the deceased...
I reverted these edits as informationectomies justified by BLP are obviously innappropriate to articles about the deceased. Geo Swan (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Death of Gloria D. Davis be keep or merge

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should thIs article be kept or merged into the Cockerham bribery case That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge The death of Davis has no inherent notability except into relation with her alleged involvement in the Cockerham bribery case. The salient parts of this article can easily be merged into that article, including speculation that her death was not a suicide. I can find no sources that mention her death independently from the bribery scandal. While there are many "The death of John Doe" sort of articles, those always have a notable interest behind them.  For example the Shooting of Trayvon Martin had massive coverage in the US and international press.  The demise of Ms. Davis IMO does not pass any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  Her death, however led (according to the sources) to the investigation and prosecution of members of the Cockerham family which did receive sustained coverage in dozens of reliable sources, That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge The death is clearly only notable in the context of the bribery case.Pincrete (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - A merge makes nothing but sense and won't create too long of an article. Meatsgains (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge as her death is notable in the context of the bribery case. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge per TmfN. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge per all above. Makes sense to merge. Ditch &#8733;  02:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As there are no objections, it seems their is consensus to merge. I see no reason to have this formally closed.  That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.