Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenden Foster (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Kotniski (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Brenden Foster

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

3rd nomination after all the silliness goes away. This page has had no edits since last nomination. It's had 20 views per day. This is a pointless, pointless vanity article. --Goalsleft2342 (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Note Page AfD created 16 March by, never listed at AfD. Listed now -- no vote. This is not a vote, just a procedural comment. [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 22:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC) (refactored by SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
 * No! don't delete it! What harm is it doing? Let Brendan's amazing legacy live on here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.204.5 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * he is an inspiration and hope for people who are lost.. shows that humanity still can produce pure and truthful souls.. 20 views only cos the majority of the population are lost in the media hype.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.22.74 (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Because you think its silly, is not a valid reason to delete it, nor a lack of page views.  Also, how do you know how many views it gets a day?  Where is that kept track at?  This got news coverage in ABC news, so it meets the notability requirements.  There is no possible reason to delete it.   D r e a m Focus  02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Dead children don't write "vanity articles" as the morally challenged nominator claims. Several third-party news sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The nom's reasoning ("pointless", etc.) has nothing to do with our notability guidelines which this person passes. What is silly is this being nominated in the "places and transportation" category.--Oakshade (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Are we sure this isn't a BLP1E? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment--he's not a living person, the "L" in BLP. There is news coverage, though it is repetitive. I edited the article some, but I have no opinion on deletion--I think an encyclopedia should aspire higher than including this type of article, but I think the WP guidelines call for inclusion, given the independent coverage. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * DeleteIm sorry to say this, but this kid aint notorious at all, the only thing he did was die of leukemia thats it, what can be so notorious about it? millions of people die of that everyday and wikipedia aint got articles for them--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep When the nominator nominated this article they said "this pointless article needs to die". That is a clear indication of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and ignores the sources presented in the article and the ones existing that are not yet listed. The article is not just about a kid who died, but the effects his death had on a larger community. - Mgm|(talk) 11:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Close the debate? I always find it odd when one's very first contribution to Wikipedia is a visit to AfD, since most new editors learn about it "the hard way"; and I think it's odd that the nomination is written in such a way that very few people would want to be associated with the comments made.  And what's this about a 3rd nomination?  I don't see that a deletion tag was ever placed on the article before .   If there comes the time that this is renominated, I would be more in favor of merging the content to Northwest Harvest, the charity for whom Brenden raised the money; and if a "Brenden Foster Fund" is created or a "Brenden Foster Food Drive" becomes an annual event, then a separate article about the fundraiser would be appropriate.  At the moment, I don't see anything that indicates that the food bank or the TV station have any intent of honoring Brenden Foster's wishes in a permanent way.  Mandsford (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per multiple independent sourcing showing influence beyond local area, and per IDONTLIKEIT nomination.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re closing -- looks to me like it should be treated as a relist on 3/31, even if there wasn't an edit explicitly stating that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, per Sam Korn's note above it was never listed before he did on the log for 4/1. It was an orphaned nomination that the usual bot didn't notice for some reason or another.  The first listing of this discussion began at the time of Sam's edit above (22:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)) GRBerry 20:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OIC. The syntax was a bit terse for me, that's why I missed it. Refactored for the benefit of the next user with !clue...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:26, 2 April 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.