Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Bacon


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Bacon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be a non-notable film. Livna-Maor (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - after a reasonably close look, I can't find any news reports or other independent sources about the film; there are some about the incident, but the film doesn't appear to have been widely enough reported on to pass WP:N, and it fails, as Schuym stated, WP:NF. – Toon (talk)  00:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't find any notability for the film, but the incident would seem to be notable, with continuing coverage in the media for years after it happened . Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no significant 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Extreme keep In agreement with the suggestion of User:Phil Bridger, I did further sourcing as I expanded the article. The sad events of Aaron Bacon's death as being covered in this film is notable beyond doubt. I found dozens of reliable sources toward the boy, his death, and the subsequent events, investigations, and litigations. It is terrible that in an untimely death a person can be them found notable. The film chronicling his death as an indictment of "boot camps" for children is itself notable per guideline, for the person and events it covers. There will doubtless be much more on this when the film is released.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The boy himself may in fact be notable (but covered by WP:1E); the article is about the film though, and notability is not inherited. Unless you can provide sources which cover the film itself, it doesn't meet our guidelines. The sources in the article cover the boy's death, not the film. An article about the child is a completely different matter, which is not what we are discussing. – Toon (talk)  11:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect:. WP:ONEVENT says ,`"Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." With respects.... the boy has not remained a "low profile individual" and has been covered in a whole series of events. His death, while certainly tragic in and of itself, became "notable" per wiki standards because of all the surrounding and subsequent repercussions which led to the entire series of well-documented and notabale events being covered by the film. Event 1, Abuse at a "bootcamp". Event 2, Death at a "bootcamp". Event 3, Investigation of a "bootcamp". Event 4, Indictment of 7 individuals. Events 5-11, the 7 different though related trials. Event 12-XX and more, Congressional investigations of all such "bootcamps". And more and more and more... Everything related to the boy and his death has had (so far) 14 years of intense coverage in reliable sources. The article IS about a film covering the boy and ALL the subsequent notable events. If it were about someone who yelled something at the president and then was heard from no more... THAT would be a One-E. This however is a film about continued and still-growing notability over 14 years... the notability a young man developed and continues to develop accross dozens of States and around the world. The boy and the events pass WP:GNG with flying colors. The production itsels is notable per WP:NFF which states, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". With respects, the as-yet-unreleased film screams past WP:N.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Half correct. I agree that that the event, this boy's tragic death, is notable, and that the best title for the article is his name, because that is what most people would type in when looking for information. I still can't see any notability for the film. I could make a film on my mobile phone about any obviously notable event, but that wouldn't make the film notable. I haven't been able to find sources for the notability of the film, and if nobody else does the article needs to be reworked to be about the event, not the film. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - to clarify, I didn't mean to say that he fails WP:1E, simply that were the article actually about the person, the guideline would have to be considered; in this event, the article is about a film which itself doesn't seem to pass the guidelines. – Toon (talk)  20:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice to closing Admin since the nomination there has been 18 footnotes added, including the New York Times (2) and the Los Angeles Times Ikip (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And the sources are about the subject of the film. Schuym1 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If there were no notable subject, there would be no film.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)]
 * You're right, but that doesn't make the film notable. Schuym1 (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the criteria of Notability of article content. Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tanthalas39 pointed out that the sources that you mentioned don't mention the film. I read through one of the articles that you mentioned, and it didn't mention it. Schuym1 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: a trivial mention here. Schuym1 (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And significant coverage here. Schuym1 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep far exceeds any notability requirments. Google has 176 hits on Mr. Bacon. I am troubled by the lack of effort before this nomination, as Notability states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." WP:INTROTODELETE, "Remember that deletion is a last resort." Thank you. Ikip (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - Do you realise that just one of the references cover the film? This is an article about the film, and the sources prove notability of the person, not the subject at hand. I think it's a little disrespectful to try to keep an article about a film on the back of coverage not of the film, but of the tragedy involving the child. This article needs to be deleted, and in its place an article about the person should be put. This deletion is not a reflection on the notability of the child himself, and doesn't prejudice the creation of an article actually covering the person. I find the arguments which manipulate the tragedy of Aaron Bacon himself as sickening, quite frankly. Delete this non-notable film and replace it with an article covering the child or the events. The sources are being completely and absolutely misrepresented. – Toon (talk)  21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you are "sickened" by my speedy defense of the film article, but when the subject himself was seemingly about to be dismissed as non-notable, it became absolutely paramount to immediately address that specific issue before he became filed and forgotten. I appreciate that you now seem to agree that the film is of notable person, and only decry it not having major coverage. Even the director himself is not seeking flashy press coverage as that might denigrate the subject matter of the film. Since it is not yet released, it falls under WP:NFF and must be judged under different standards than Star Wars or Steel Magnolias. Beyond the one article you accept as significant,  Outside (magazine),  Heal, Troubled Teen Industry, Isaccorp.org, Grace Lutheran Church, Boylesoftware, ICSA, Teen Advocates, and more... all speak of the film. Their "mentions" are a bit more-than-trivial, but less-than-significant. My point here being is that the director and production company are not jumping on the bandwagon of hype. Perhaps they wish to honor the boy's memory. The film must be judged differently from a majorly financed blosckbuster... as it is not intended to excite or amuse, but to educate and enlighten. Per all applicable guidelines and the notability and historical aspect of the the film, it passes WP:NFF and which specifically states "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines"... which passes us to WP:N which allows that the offered sources show beyond a doubt that the subject matter is "worthy of notice" and that this subject's worthiness is supported by "multiple independent sources", and specifically meets the criteria of Notability of article content.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my assumptions above, I think it's a case of crossed wires; you perceived the arguments for deletion as judgement upon the person, not the film, and I judged your defence as manipulation. It's an emotive subject, that's for sure. I looked at a few of the links, which don't seem to cover the film in-depth, which would be required to pass the film notability guideline, or evidence of a major accomplishment etc. I'm still unconvinced that the film itself is notable enough for inclusion per our guidelines, but I'd certainly like to see an article about the boy on here. – Toon (talk)  23:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I appreciate the adamant nature of the above keep votes, and there are many valid points. However, the salient question here is, "is the film notable"? Whether or not the subject himself is notable is truly irrelevant here. The subject is notable, as the laundry list of references recently added point out. This indicates that there should most definitely be an article on the subject himself. The argument above that it is the "production itself" that is notable is incorrect, in my opinion. Per WP:N, this article should be deleted unless far more robust coverage in multiple, reliable sources is located. Tan   &#124;   39  00:06, 28 January 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.