Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Kennedy


 * 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. per WP:SNOW JForget  22:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

David Kennedy

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

I don't believe this article meets WP:GNG in that it does not demonstrate that the individual has received substantial coverage independent of that which is given to his family name. The description in the opening line would indicate he is known for being born in Washington and being "the fourth of eleven children of Robert F. Kennedy and Ethel Skakel Kennedy". The article goes on to describe his childhood, the scars of seeing his father killed, how he began to abuse drugs, attended university, wanted to be a journalist, went to discos with "attractive women", minor crimes such as speeding. Even if all this were true (it is difficult for me to determine if all the details are as it is largely unsourced), I do not think this marks this individual out as notable in their own right. We then find out he has died and thus this may provide some hope of notability. Alas, he died of an overdose after several days of partying. He is then buried. And that is that. Clearly this was a fun-loving individual but nothing he did in his life or even death is particularly unusual. The death evidently received some news coverage as the one online source provided would indicate but WP:NOTNEWS should apply there as any death such as this may or may not receive media coverage of some sort. Some offline references are provided but the titles of these suggest a focus on the family name rather than this individual, indeed the third title describes a different individual altogether. By the end of the article, one is left with the impression of this being both an interesting character but also some sort of WP:MEMORIAL. I did do a quick Google search but it seemed to throw up other individuals with the same surname, but again focusing on the family rather than the individual and nothing that indicated any possible individual notability. can dle &bull; wicke  19:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Someone doesn't actually have to "do" anything to be a notable person - the very fact that his life was something known pretty widely by the public is reason enough. If not only for his relation, he is notable enough for people to want to know more about him, which, after all, is the point of Wikipedia. Experimental Hobo Infiltration Droid (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah but I disagree with some of that. For example, the children of Michael Jackson have not "done" anything, their lives are public and there are people who want to know more about them and have even attempted to create articles on their individual lives. I don't think it can be said that the point of Wikipedia is to provide information on everything in separate articles when there are other options, a list may do in some circumstances or no article at all may be more appropriate in other circumstances. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  20:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with the nom in that he is only notable for being a member of the Kennedy family. Although notability is not inherited, the interest in this family (America's equivalent of a royal family) is to such a degree that I think an exception could be made in this case. I don't think anyone will [successfully] use this Afd as a precedent to start an article on Martin Fiennes Location (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Might they not? These are held as the equivalent of an American royal family it would seem, judging by the above comment and some of the reactions I have witnessed elsewhere in previous days. Yet where is the limit to this family, i.e. if one gives birth to a baby, will there be an article on it like, for example, Prince Henrik of Denmark. And if we make an exception for an unofficial American royal family, is it possible that a similar situation in another country (which possesses a comparatively popular family) will be permitted or does one exist? I am curious about this and about where it begins and ends. I have also seen a baby article in this family who died after two days of life so I am wondering about that too. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have edited my comment to include the word "successfully". I do indeed think there is a different level of interest (or general notability) in a Kennedy or a Danish prince versus an umpteenth generation Fiennes. If there is an article created about a member of some other family in some other country where that person's notability is in question, I imagine it will make its way here for us to discuss. Regarding the limit you speak of, I think that is ultimately decided by the public's interest in a subject but you can almost see where it is in List of descendants of Joseph P. and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy by looking at who has articles and who doesn't. Location (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although it is not clear cut, I would call this a keep. Kennedy is in my opinion notable enough. As an above editor noted, you don't necessarily have to accomplish or "do" anything to become notable. Not only connected to the Kennedy family, but also a prime example and extension of the Kennedy Curse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.130.249 (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep.The suggestion that this page warrants deletion says more about the shortcomings of the criteria used to draw that conclusion than it does about the subject of he article. The fact that this person did not live to accomplish more is itself notable, when his situation is viewed on the context of a family that had already suffered extraordinary tragedies.  Watch the number of hits this page has received in recent days, and compare it to other pages not considered for deletion.  While that standard may not be a test for notability, in itself, it is a reflection that his tragic and short life, as a member of the Kennedy family, is for that reason alone notable.  Wikijsmak (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject spent much of his life in the public eye. Unfortunately, unlike some of his siblings, he didn't have much in his life that could be considered accomplishments. Yet, nevertheless, he was repeatedly mentioned in the news. Even when he was hospitalized with pneumonia, that went out on the Associated Press wire. Basically, if someone is repeatedly the focus of news stories during their lifetime in regard to separate incidents, that suggests that they are notable even if the main reason the media are reporting on the person is who their relatives are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Granted, David Kennedy's death would not attracted nationwide attention if it hadn't been for his name; but regardless of whether he deserved to receive significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, he did receive such coverage when he died in 1984. Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - de facto royalty, well-attested, lots of reliable sources could be added. This rescuable. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * snowball keep - has recieved more than trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources for more than one event. -- The Red Pen of Doom  04:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Emphatic Keep. It's a no brainer. No need to overthink it. The subject has been the subject of many, many news articles, many. This equates to "non-trivial" coverage. The sources are reliable. It's a no-brainer. Artemis84 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep per above reasoning. --Milowent (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- no valid justification for deletion offered. Geo Swan (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No matter why he is well known, he is well known. Famous = Notable.   D r e a m Focus  14:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Snowball keep as per above. The Squicks (talk) 02:41, 7 September 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.