Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Gerry Ryan


 * 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. I realize that this is a controversial closure based on the vote count of this AfD, but I believe that the keep votes have a much stronger argument. The vast majority of the delete votes are actually either "delete and merge" (which is impossible per policy) or are variants of WP:JNN. A merge is certainly not out of the picture, but that is something that should be discussed on Talk:Death of Gerry Ryan. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. NW ( Talk ) 03:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just realized that I closed this about 8 hours early. That was my mistake; the fact that I was closing it near midnight local time made me confuse the date. I don't think that really affects anything, but I just wanted to note that I recognize that now and I apologize. NW ( Talk ) 04:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Death of Gerry Ryan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

An unnecessary content fork for Gerry Ryan. Nothing particularly special about his death to justify having a separate article about it. The death is already adequately covered in Gerry Ryan. Nsk92 (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  —Nsk92 (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Nsk92 (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WikiNews is that away, and this is all this article appears to be. His death was neither spectularly unnusual nor so heavily discussed that it needs its own article. People die every day...it certainly isn't a notable event in and of itself. His death is already well covered, as noted, by his existing article. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Similar to Articles for deletion/Tim Russert tributes, which was eventually redirected to the article about Tim Russert. I'm not opposed to a redirect. Mandsford 13:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: unnecessary article whose prose can well be included in the main Gerry Ryan article. ww2censor (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - It seems like Gerry_Ryan covers this well enough, and I agree that it might be an unnecessary content fork. However, the article is very well referenced with sources specifically about his death. I didn't hear much about his death in the USA, but it seems like a pretty big deal in Ireland. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 15:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not. 86.46.17.58 (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - merge back into main article. Snappy (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. This is a content fork of information that should already be in his article. If not, consolidate and merge. moreno oso (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is long and tedious but anyway. The death is not already adequately covered in Gerry Ryan in my opinion as it lacks any mention of the events at the end of the article such as the funeral. Both articles also contain 70+ references. I'm not sure if the statement "His death was neither spectularly unnusual nor so heavily discussed that it needs its own article" is entirely accurate in this case. The death is quite heavily discussed in the sources present in the article, is still being discussed by the media today (some recent examples    ) and being discussed in terms such as "a seismic effect on Irish society" while it also apparently "practically brought Ireland to a standstill" in the words of one source.

"People die every day" - this is quite true but does the type of person who thousands of people from all backgrounds queue in the rain to sign their name over several days in two different locations die every day? Including queuing before the building even opens? Comparisons to Princess Diana (over the top in my opinion but considering the reaction there are those who differ and there is at least one reliable source making that comparison). It is also not an average death that leads to a funeral being broadcast live on radio (a station which has never broadcast funerals) and online nor does the average funeral feature a specially rerecorded version of a reasonably well-known song by an internationally-recognised rock band    nor is it an average death that leads to hundreds of people having a minute's silence in Ibiza. Most of this information is not in the "Gerry Ryan" article and it isn't even so much the death itself but the events that occurred as a result. The "Tim Russert tributes" article mentioned above was simply a list of tributes - actual events of this nature are not described in that article; it does not go beyond featuring the immediate words of various famous or notable people.

The definition of content forking is "the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject [...] As an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage". There are two articles here. One describes the person's life. The other describes the death and subsequent events, including funeral, etc. (of which there is a related category indicating that this nothing new).

As for WP:N the following all appear to be the case here or am I mistaken? - (i) Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable (ii) Article topics are required to be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. (iii) A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines. "Worthy of notice" may be open to interpretation but having already mentioned several unusual events which do not occur as a result of the average death and a funeral which was certainly not average this does appear to be "worthy of notice".

Then, regarding the GNG, (i) Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. (ii) Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. (iii) Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. (iv) Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.''

On the above (i) each statement in the article is referenced, nothing is original; "trivial mention" does not do the topic of the source material justice as they all focus on the topic in a great amount of detail (ii) secondary sources available? several in other languages could be found too if necessary considering the recognition the subject has at European level (iii) sources are multiple and reliable and among those used on more than one occasion to describe events over several days are the BBC and The Irish Times, "considered to be Ireland's newspaper of record" (iv) none of the sources used in the article are press releases, etc. released by the subject's employer so are not they therefore all independent of the subject? -- can  dle • wicke  02:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This was an event in itself and too large to be covered adequately  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 10:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. This is wothless on its own. Ceoil (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - not a notable event - it's just current news. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Which part of Wikipedia's guideline on notable events does this refer to out of curiosity? WP:GEOSCOPE? Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group? Or An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable? Or WP:DIVERSE? (Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable.) Are any of the many sources discussing the ethics of reporting death on Twitter helpful? The result? Or the actress who said this would never happen in the United States? The contribution from the psychotherapist? Or tomorrow's newspaper coverage (including an honorary award)? -- can  dle • wicke  03:11, 17 May 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.