Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alden Brock


 * 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 redirect to Philmont Scout Ranch. Spartaz Humbug! 22:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Alden Brock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  04:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)  Updated rationale in light of an early "Keep" comment:  WP:ONEEVENT and, arguably but not definitively, WP:NOTMEMORIAL (it is not written as a memorial, but it is in the context of noting a person's death). davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  04:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Wikipedia is overly critical. You guys are assuming things that I'm not even doing. Such as, why is it that it seems like I am using the Alden Brock page as a "memorial page"? It's not like I put "RIP Alden Brock, -gravestone here-" or any of that nonsense. Jokes aside, I remained neutral, I didn't use opinion words, and you guys think this is a memorial page. This actually angers me. You guys are dismissing my hard work like crazy, acting like it's all a piece of junk that is to be thrown away. Linking to WP:NOTMEMORIAL is immature. Assuming I am attacking people is even more immature. Do you guys understand what I'm saying? If you're going to label pages for deletion, at least give better, non-assumed reasons for it. I bet the person who marked Alden Brock never even took the time to read the entire page, am I not correct? Could you at least try that hard, to save yourself the ignorance? Philmonte101 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your points are well taken. Perhaps I was a bit strong in citing WP:NOTMEMORIAL.  However, I stand by WP:ONEEVENT.  I have updated the rationale accordingly.  I have also replied to a similar comment on your talk page. Note to other editors reading this: The editor's frustration is understandable given some interaction between him and myself (and a third editor) on topics not directly related to this deletion discussion. Please see through the frustration and look at the merits of his claims. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only significance of Brock is within the context of a single event. The event is not notable: it is not mentioned at the Philmont Scout Ranch article. Further, all of the sources about Brock are within the context of either the flood or his death. As a recently-dead person, he is still within the scope of the biographies of living persons policy, including WP:BLP1E. There are three conditions listed within BLP1E where notable for a single event a person should not have an article, and Brock meets all three. —C.Fred (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It could be mentioned on Philmont's article, there are enough references to support it. For instance, on the Danish Wikipedia article, Alden Brock's death and the flood is mentioned briefly. Philmonte101 (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How often do deaths happen at Philmont? If it's a relatively infrequent thing, it probably does warrant a small mention in the Philmont article. (Probably just a sentence, no more than a paragraph.) —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) To prevent giving undue weight, it might be better to have a single paragraph or section that discussed all Scout/Scouter/Chaperone deaths at Philmont in the article about Philmont that have reliable sources to back them up. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  04:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Update:  I have added possible sources for such an expansion at User talk:Philmonte101.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  05:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A list is probably a good approach, with entry like "Alden Brock (2015): swept away by a flash flood. Three other scouts swept away by the same flood were rescued, but Brock drowned." Obviously, source at the end of the entry. As long as deaths are relatively infrequent, the list makes sense. If it averages out to a death a year or more, the list would get so long that it would overwhelm the rest of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, keep: I don't see why we shouldn't have this Philmont article if we have unsourced articles about Philmont like Rich Cabins. If you don't like this article, nominate that one for deletion too. Philmonte101 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The above is a duplicate !vote. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists: "If X can't have an article, then Y shouldn't either" is an argument that is strongly to be avoided in deletion discussions. This discussion is about a person who was a camper at a camp; deletion discussion of a location at the camp is an entirely separate subject. —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and merge: preserve history, merging content to Philmont Scout Ranch, and leaving this page as a redirect. There is no doubt in my mind that Brock does not warrant a stand-alone article. I do think we can justify a mention of him in the Philmont Scout Ranch article, as part of a list of scouts who have died at the camp (unless it becomes extensive in length, per my prior comment). I do think the article would be useful as a redirect pointing to that section of the article. The question then becomes, should the history of the article be kept? Short as the article is, it's better from an attribution standpoint to have it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's why I want this article kept as it is. I agree, it should at least be somewhere on Wikipedia if not in its own article if we absolutely must. But keep in mind that though it's a bad idea to make this argument, there are much less notable articles on people that are somehow still kept here. Philmonte101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: other stuff exists: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  If you see articles that don't clearly demonstrate notability and you've tried the things listed in WP:BEFORE and are still convinced the topic is not notable, I would encourage you to bag-em-and-tag-em.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete He drowned in a flash flood at Philmont. I see nothing that makes him notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Argument #1: I don't think any of you guys are paying attention to the fact that I included all details about Alden, and the fact that many people would want to search for him. As proof of this, see Alden (name); someone had already added his name to this disambiguation page with a link before I even got to it. See? People want to see an article about him, if you guys are so overly focused on what people want, well, people do want this article. It is you guys who are being deconstructive by trying to delete this perfectly okay article. Argument #2: I gave plenty of citations. 9 citations is more than enough even to take off the "additional citations for verification" tag. We all know this incident happened. Argument #3: I think he deserves a Wikipedia article anyway. As you can see, this may have only happened at Philmont, but it has uniquely been announced on news channels nationwide. It was a very important event that changed the lives of many staff members and many Scouts that come to Philmont, as well as the lives that knew him. Argument #4: (which kind of goes along with #3) I think you guys don't even have any idea how many people actually come to Philmont, and work at Philmont. It's a hell of a lot of people, I don't think you guys are really getting this. Because this incident left a mark on so many lives and was announced nationwide, he is a notable person at Philmont. This argument in a nutshell: We should have an article for this boy whose death affected the lives of thousands of people in and outside of Philmont. You have to keep in mind that his life affected thousands of people, which is a huge significance, and any person who becomes even semi-famous, has more than 3 external references from different publishers, and effected the lives of 1,000+ people in different areas of the world, should have an article, without even questions asked. If I were the person running this site, that's what I'd do. Furthermore: I would be incredibly disappointed if this article were to just be "mentioned briefly on Philmont Scout Ranch's article. Any further responses, might I suggest, be in response to all of these four arguments, in chronological order, like "1. reason you disagree with argument 1, 2. reason you disagree with argument 2, 3. reason you disagree with argument 3, 4. reason you disagree with argument 4." rather than just suggesting a merge or saying basically "not notable"? I'm not trying to be mean here but it's getting a bit annoying to read the same deconstructive point over and over again after I worked really hard on this article and wanted him to stay. Please don't even waste your time to mention WP:NOTMEMORIAL because that will make me even more upset. Just because my intentions were to make an article about a boy who I think's life should have an article, I also think that he has enough sources to have an article. At this point I highly doubt this article will stay, unfortunately, because I'm highly outvoted, but I really hope you guys at least listen to me and take my points through your head rather than ignore them. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Rewrite as 2015 Philmont Scout Ranch flash flood or redirect to Philmont Scout Ranch (with the history preserved under the redirect) per WP:ONEEVENT: "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. ..." The subject, Alden Brock, is significant for his role in a single event, drowning during a flash flood at Philmont Scout Ranch. He has received significant coverage for his death only. He has not received significant coverage outside his death. Therefore, WP:ONEVENT applies and there should not be an article about him. Another possibility is to write an article about the event, which would be titled 2015 Philmont Scout Ranch flash flood. Alden Brock's death could be covered in the context of that article. Here are several articles that discuss particular flash floods: Kopuawhara flash flood of 1938, 1971 Canberra flood, Jacobs Creek Flood, and 2015 Utah floods. There is a list of flash floods. Any article about the Philmont flash flood must meet Notability (events) or it could be nominated for deletion and deleted. There is coverage of the flood from national sources like USA Today and NBC News, as well as regional and local sources: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/28/boy-scout-dies-flooding/29420383/, http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boy-scout-dies-flash-flood-new-mexicos-philmont-scout-ranch-n383261, http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/details-of-deadly-flash-flood-that-killed-boy-scout-raise/article_ba4cd170-af60-5eb7-a7af-22f77c9a41b8.html, http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/accidents/boy-scout-dies-in-flash-flood-while-camping-in-new-mexico/2235373, http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article25770799.html, http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article25933819.html, and http://www.taosnews.com/news/article_720d9ef2-1dc7-11e5-b31c-178d9f1f83dd.html. These sources ensure that the flash flood event fulfills WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:INDEPTH. The two other main considerations are WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. It is unclear if the flash flood fulfills them. For now, since there is no article about the flood, I recommend redirecting to Philmont Scout Ranch (with the history preserved under the redirect) so that the content can be reframed to discuss the event if desired. Cunard (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nominator reply As nominator, I find both of these options (keep-history-and-redirect and write-article-about-flood-but-only-if-WP:Notability-is-met) are as good as if not better than outright deletion. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Philmont Scout Ranch, as per the excellent analysis of .  Onel 5969  TT me 13:11, 1 November 2015 (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.