Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Simpson (fundraiser)


 * 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   merge to Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Simpson (fundraiser)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This kid has acheived a lot, raising £150,000 for victims of the Haiti earthquake. If he keeps on in that vein, he will certainly qualify for a Wikipedia article in the future. But he is seven years old, and only known for one event: we should apply the presumption in favor of privacy, and wish him the best for his future life. Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to here Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake. I can understand the nominators decisions for posting this. For the most part the single event of the activities could be mentioned here ((humanitarian article) with respect to his privacy (by mentioning the event without being descriptive of the individual). Just my thoughts on this. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure at all about the presumption in favour of privacy argument as Charlie himself has happily been involved in lots of publicity for his fundraising.  He has given interviews to the BBC (video here ), another BBC video here ), Sky News (video here ), and the Mirror newspaper (video here ) and probably more I haven't found.  Also, the only personal information I have included is his age, his mother's first name, that he lives in Fulham, likes riding a bike, is a schoolboy and has raised a lot of money: as far as I can see it is, as the Presumption guidelines say, completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
 * Admittedly he is only gaining notoriety for one event, but I would argue that it is a very significant one: as the UNICEF representative said, "We've never known anything like it. We've never had anyone raise £60,000 in one day for us before". The international aspect of the response to his fundraising is unusual as well.  And how often does a 7 year old get the Prime Minister twittering about them? Stronach (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with mentioning the fundraising event in the appropriate article. I do have a problem in saying that one event should be used to define this person's life, and I find it sickening if that event happened when he was seven years old. Let's not forget that we have a long-standing policy not to allow people to request deletion of their own biographies, so this page will stand all through this kid's puberty, his first dates, etc. unless we kill it now! Physchim62 (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah, some strong language there - 'sickening', and you imply that he will be embarrassed by it in future. Well, none of us knows that, do we, but if I were him I'd be very proud of what I'd achieved, as he clearly is now.
 * Can you just clarify under what criteria you are AfDing this, please? Stronach (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEEVENT (part of WP:BLP) is the main policy, with a plea for extra common sense in that the person concerned is so young. It is not our place to decide what this person will want or not when he is older: on the other hand, we can apply our normal policies and say that there is no reason that he has an individual biography. And yes, I do find it sickening that people pretend that a seven year-old is, for example, capable of informed consent to a media interview: kids give interviews with the permission of their parents, and such interviews are usually forgotten in the archives unless something else happens. Physchim62 (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Let's not forget that we have a long-standing policy not to allow people to request deletion of their own biographies, so this page will stand all through this kid's puberty, his first dates, etc. unless we kill it now!" would suggest to me that you are "deciding what this person will want or not when he is older", by suggesting that he wouldn't want it to be in existence in future years as he will be embarrassed by it. I was trying to point out another, perfectly valid reaction of his that he might have in future years, which could be used to argue the exact opposite of what you were arguing. Stronach (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Worldwide news coverage. Large fundraising event. Well cited. Keep. Scanlan (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain which of the criteria at WP:SK are applicable to this AFD? Ucucha 17:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Redirect/Merge to Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake - WP:ONEVENT states (with emphasis added): "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." I do not think this instance merits overriding the general rule. And I do not see how this person's activity is anywhere near as significant as the greater events (Haiti earthquake relief fundraising). Each of the individuals rescued after several days would not get their own page, despite significant news coverage. Neither should this person.  Novaseminary (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course his actions are not anywhere near as significant as the greater events (Haiti earthquake relief fundraising in general). But they have become internationally known and are quite extraordinary - see the UNICEF representative I quoted above.  The "response by private persons" section of Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake lists celebrities - Charlie is just about the only non-celebrity there, and he has raised more than Madonna donated. I find that level of fundraising extraordinary and noteworthy. Stronach (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The others are celebrities because they're known for more than donating to humanitarian causes. Terrierhere (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:ONEEVENT. I question the value of an encyclopedic article on a person for just this, at any age, and ponder the wisdom of Winifred Sackville Stoner, Jr.: "There is nothing more terrible for any child than to be put up as an example of precocity and to be expected to shine in all things and at all times."--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * General question - as objections to this article seem to be based as much on the subject's age as on the One Event criterion, is there a Wikipedia guideline anywhere about articles on children? Stronach (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My objection is not due to his age. Wikipedia has many articles on children, most of whom are likely famous actors, sports or other performers, or who have won major awards. The closest I can see to a guideline is "they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy." in WP:BLPNAME. Obviously, Charlie's well covered in international sources and so that doesn't apply. But it does infer that children are generally afforded more privacy than adults. Terrierhere (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake. WP:ONEEVENT clearly applies here, and like Novaseminary I see no good reason for disregarding the general rule against having a biography in this case, particularly since the young age of the subject means that there is likely to be NO verifiable content outside of the context of this event. Scog (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Emotionally I'd like to keep, as it's a good article about a notable event. But while the person is admirable and has been covered internationally, his fundraising for Haiti earthquake donations is part of a larger event. The coverage is insufficient to retain a separate article about Charlie the person at this time. I think the unusualness of and international coverage focusing on his fundraising merits a few more sentences merge and redirected to Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake, but not nearly the entire article, as that'd be way too much WP:UNDUE weight. Terrierhere (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep For those citing privacy has anyone asked his Mum? People seem to be assuming they know what is best for someone else's child. Mum doesn't seem to mind all the publicity plus this article is only a gathering of information in the public domain already. Some comments seem to be marking him down because of his age but surely that is the most noteworthy part in this noteworthy event raising such a huge amount of money and deserves more than a foot note in another related article. To my mind there is something miserable and churlish about deleting this - but do what you will. Whilst we are about it shall we delete the Helen Rollason article as well? She raised lots of money for charity. 22:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbryanejones (talk • contribs)
 * Delete or merge to Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake. There are many precedents to deleting articles about small children who are known for one event, book, or circumstance, especially of living kids.  It is not churlish, it is sensible and our usual practice. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you believe it sensible to delete? What is the invisible line you have to cross to be worthy of an article and why does being a child make them less worthy of an article? Not trying to be a troll just curious why people are getting so wound up over this. I can understand that we don't want articles appearing about every last child on the planet posted by proud parents, but this child really has achieved something extraordinary. That said, I think I am wasting my time typing this as I can see which way the debate is swinging. Who actually adjudicates based on the comments recieved and authorises the deletion? —Preceding Mrbryanejones 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As other editors and I have noted, the main issue is the article runs afoul of WP:ONEEVENT. That is enough to support a merge/redirect. The subject being a child is secondary (but all the more reason to follow the other guidelines precisely). See WP:AFD for answers to your other questions.Novaseminary (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete What is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia or a news magazine? This person achieved brief newsworthiness, not enduring notability.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge per Oxonian2006, Bearian, qnd Terrierhere, among others. Classic case of BLP1E. --Crusio (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2010 (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.