Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjaman Kyle


 * 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. Tone 14:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Benjaman Kyle

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

Subject does not seem to be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Only defining characteristics are amnesia and a single appearance on Dr. Phil. Goodnight mush Talk  22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty unusual to me. He has the defining characteristic of being unidentifiable, yet still alive and well. Shadowblade (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting enough to me as well for the same reasons, I read the whole article and would like to see more. --Tsaylor (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above two replies. This is a very interesting person who I would like to know a lot more about. --Kenjamin80 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Seems to be WP:BLP1E but I could be wrong. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment At the very least, it needs to be cleaned up. Where did the picture with this caption comes from? "Beard darkened - how Benjaman may have looked in prior years" I could be wrong, but it seems to me that at least one editor is using this article as a joke. Rm999 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From the Discovery blog via Google cache as it appeared on 3 Jan 2009 20:58:0  "Round and round we went and Project EDAN ended up doing an age regression for the case upon request of Dr Phil. Two artists created a variety of age regressed images to various ages -- both hand sketched and digital". One square on the chessboard (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Rm999 (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple other articles on this guy...  http://savannahnow.com/node/364434   http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=104800   Let's leave this page up in the hopes that it helps someone recognize him.  AngledLuffa
 * Must not be deleted ! This could be the man's only hope of reuniting with his real life !! Whoever suggested the deletion must be a truly cruel hearted person. Is this what wikipedia has become? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.240.155 (talk)
 * Wikipedia isn't meant to promote anyone or anything. We're not being cruel at all; he just doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. And please don't attack other editors. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of far less interesting or relevant personal biographies on Wikipedia. Why not give this one a chance for a while longer? --Uyvsdi —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC).
 * For what it's worth, there's a high probability that this is a fraud. True amnesics almost invariably lose recent memory and retain remote memory.  The opposite pattern (as claimed here) is hardly ever seen outside TV shows.  Note the absence of any reliable sources here. Looie496 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a reliable source, The Augusta Chronicle . One square on the chessboard (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers and TV shows have been following his story for quite some time and no mention of fraud has come up. After three years, if it was just a hoax, it would certainly be found out by now. --Uyvsdi —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC).

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Since he has been featured on secondary media sources, he should meet notability guidelines. FunkyDuffy (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Reference "Augusta Chronicle, Tuesday, September 25, 2007: Man with no memory tries to start new life" has been added to the article. One square on the chessboard (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable. Do not delete.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral comment: For what it's worth it appears The Discovery Channel blogged about this after the Dr.Phil appearance. Original blog is down so here is the google cache. http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:vIONIRGc-A4J:blogs.discovery.com/sleuth_truth/2008/08/to-be-or-not-to.html AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Stong delete - does not meet notability guidelines and has iffy "truthiness" @ best. Fluppy (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep - this man is notable for being in need of the internet's help. Gordonjay (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I remember reading about this man in a weekly I buy. There may be more work needed in citing sources, but that doesn't mean the subject doesn't conform to WP:BIO. ephix (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable. May need more sources, but still notable. --Vicovico (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable, and it's too much like invading this guy's privacy: He's barely a public figure, assuming he is one at all, and here we have an article about some very difficult times in his life with only the barest fig leaf of external sources, none of them very good. --chbarts (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "It showed up on reddit! Hurry, we have to delete this article!" God, is that what an admin really does? Try to keep a good PR image for Wikipedia? Geez, go expand an article or something, or at least give up your tools if all you're going to do is come back every once in a while to 'revert' someone every other week rather than make even the slightest attempt to expand an 'encyclopedia'. Probably too busy spending time on reddit. 75.64.247.79 (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Fail to see how this is not "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Subject meets all these criteria. 1. It is significant enough to warrant relatively broad media coverage. 2. It is interesting to many people (thats why the guy was on Dr. Phil: Because people are interested, and it would not tank ratings.) and, 3. It is unusual. Come on, let's face it: how often do you hear about a guy waking up naked in the streets, claiming not to know anything anymore. So far, this only happened in 12 Monkeys and Terminator. That's right - unusual enough to make it as significant plot device in several major motion pictures. (this comment is only partly tongue in cheek - truth is, this is unusual to many people) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijnd (talk • contribs) 06:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject is notable, as evidenced by his appearance on national television and the newspaper/magazine articles about him. Additionally, the case is unusual and interesting as an example of Retrograde amnesia. LK (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems sufficiently notable to me. ShardPhoenix (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've cleaned up the article some, and the 5 sources currently on the page establish notability in my book.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  16:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * keep meets WP:BIO as per sources given in the article. The only possible reason I could see someone arguing for deletion that has not been brought up some possible risk of harm by having an article but that's clearly not the case in this situation (quite the opposite in fact). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 8 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.