Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Howard Liebengood


 * 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 no consensus. After a month of discussion it is clear that there is no consensus about the notability of these topics. Editors who favored deleting these articles suggest that this event is not notable and the people being mentioned are not notable owing to their lack of individual award. While some editors who favored keep could plausibly have their !votes weighted downward by the group, rather than individual nature, of the award it is clear that even without that award there remains a substantial number of editors who feel that these topics meet our notability requirements, including that of sustained coverage. As such there is clearly no consensus at the current time. It may be possible to find a consensus in the future, especially as the issue of sustained coverage will have more information as coverage will either continue or it won't, and so it's recommended that no re-nomination occur for at least six months. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Death of Howard Liebengood

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An earlier version of this article has already been deleted following an AfD discussion that I opened up over WP:SPLIT and WP:BLP1E concerns. That discussion agreed that there was no basis for notability on Liebengood's suicide, which I mentioned was not classified as a homicide (obviously) and therefore did not require an exhaustive investigation like with Brian Sicknick. Looking at the recreated article, I see not much has changed in terms of notability, and I don't see how it'll be raised now. Love of Corey (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am also nominating the following related page because it also involves the suicide of a Capitol police officer who responded to the events of January 6, which is deemed non-notable based on the parameters of the aforementioned previous AfD discussion, which in turn cites discussions such as Talk:April 2021 United States Capitol car attack/Archive 1 and Articles for deletion/Jacob Chestnut:


 * Love of Corey (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Pinging the following editors from Talk:April 2021 United States Capitol car attack/Archive 1 and Articles for deletion/Jacob Chestnut for participation:, , , , , , , , , , , , , . Love of Corey (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. However tragic, this subject is not encyclopedic. I'm sure there's a suitable redirect target out there if a consensus leans in that direction. KidAd  •  SPEAK  22:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When you say "delete", are you referring to both articles, or just the main one? I have another article bundled into this AfD, which relates to another Capitol officer who committed suicide relatively recently. Love of Corey (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep /unsure, per below comment on Aug. 21/ /Keep after all: event is notable & significant honor; Merger would be okay/ per WP:ANYBIO criterion #1, The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor -- the award is the Congressional Gold Medal (list of recipients, 176 individuals since 1776). The subjects of the two articles is twofold: A BIO1E that passes automatically as a biography because of ANYBIO #1, but also, the event itself is notable, and the dominant aspect of the articles' subject is indeed the event, which is the suicide. Per WP:BIO1E, The general rule is to cover the event, not the person -- the articles duly cover the events of the police officers' suicides, which were covered in considerable depth. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, .... These suicides obviously have an enduring historical significance because they are closely tied to a massively important historical event, they are regularly mentioned alongside the casualties, and there's no indication that this would change; GNG is met, evident from the references. Non-notable biographical information does not form the backbone of the articles' content. The articles are fashioned after Death of Brian Sicknick, which is notable for similar reasons, but also because of the controversy surrounding that police officer's death. However there doesn't have to be a controversy for something to be notable. I don't like how the nominator chose to select the less developed of the two articles as the primary nomination. Participants in this discussion should look at the other nominated article, Death of Jeffrey L. Smith, first, to see what the intended form of both articles roughly is. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , in response to your comment that not much has changed in terms of notability, basically, two things have changed: (1) the well-known and significant award was since awarded, (2) the subject has been reformulated as an event, instead of a biography, necessitating a different lens than the one used last time. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. on the basis of the award. There's noi need to enter into a more complicated argument when there's an obvious criterion.  DGG ( talk ) 09:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. on the basis of the Congressional Gold Medal. Only awarded to less than 200 people since the founding of the republic.  President Biden stated in the Rose Garden that Liebengood, Evans and Smith "saved democracy itself."  More substantial news is happening now regarding Officer Smith and his assailants.  I therefore vote keep.  Thank you for inviting me to comment.  Esvabird (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to the person, because we aren't to second guess whether the award was deserved or not - even though in my opinion the issuing of the awards has about as much rationale behind its awarding as giving the Peace Prize to Obama. it's still a notable and significant award given by the people with the authority to do so. However, these articles all now need to be renamed as their death is no longer the potentially notable event, but their life is - just because the medal was awarded posthumously, our criteria says that it confers notability on the person - meaning they are notable themselves, not just for one event. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Made some edits to make clearer exactly what I'm saying and link directly to the policy I based my opinion on. I'll use this notification of my edits to my prior comment to also say that we may wish to rethink this "awards confer notability" not just for this award or field, but in general - that however is a topic for... well.. not here at least. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep because of the award specifically, seems notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep both articles. The awards passed by congress just for them, and coverage of them, make them notable enough for a couple of Wikipedia articles.   D r e a m Focus  19:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is no one I pinged going to respond? Love of Corey (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above discussion. I'm not going to get into the weeds of whether the award is per se notable, period. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep both; or Merge to one of the suggested articles, based both on the awards and their key parts in an historic event, a la Samuel Mudd and Jim Leavelle.
 * I would also rename to avoid the "Death of..." prefices. Their notability is not for their deaths alone, but for their participation in the insurrection response; for their deaths; and for the subsequent congressional recognition. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: per my comment below, one of the various merges being proposed would be acceptable, too (e.g. to Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack or Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack). TJRC (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete both per WP:BIO1E, and for consistency with consensus established in Articles for deletion/Howard Charles Liebengood, Articles for deletion/Jacob Chestnut, and the other discussions cited by the nominator. WP:ANYBIO #1 doesn't confer automatic notability because by the guideline's own terms, meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included. The deaths can be covered with sufficient detail in the broader articles about the Capitol attack. Edge3 (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 15:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I looked back and noticed the names of Howard Liebengood and the other capitol police officers are not listed at List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients. I don't understand how these capitol police officers are any more notable then the members of Office of Strategic Services who won the same medal, but don't have there own articles. Mysticair667537 (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * you've been... misled by the manner in which the four gold medals have been included in the list. Each of the four officers was awarded a medal individually (which is not reflected in the list, but is clearly and correctly and verifiably stated here), and ...the organization /OSS/ was collectively honored with a Congressional Gold Medal. So, four people individually vs. an organization collectively. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Actually no. I've take a second look at all the sources and read the full text of the bill, and the reason four medals were given was: "one each to be displayed at the headquarters of the Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police, one at the Smithsonian and one at the Capitol." (NYT) It is not the case that four specific officers were each individually awarded a medal. All four medals were given to a collective. This means that Liebengood and Smith (and Sicknick, and Evans) are not, as individuals, recipients of this award. Nevertheless their names were noted in the bill, and were mentioned during the signing ceremony. This is still a major honor, but WP:ANYBIO #1 involving this award does not apply as it would had they been direct recipients. Not so sure about my !vote. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, WP:SPLIT and WP:BLP1E concerns 00:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
 * Comment - I would urge all keep!voters and all those considering a keep vote submission to look at 's argument. Love of Corey (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I'd say so, because it is notable (after WP guidelines) to know that there were a few policemen behind the sabotage of that happening in the capitol. --Chris VDR (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Uhhhhh...but neither Liebengood nor Smith were confirmed to be behind any of the sabotage that happened that day... Love of Corey (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. The dispute is about whether the awards outweigh the BLP1E problems. In my view, they do not, because the awards are also an aspect of the event (or its aftermath), and should therefore also be covered in articles about the event.  Sandstein   18:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * BLP1E would not apply as the person is dead -- BIO1E would. Had the subject of this article been defined as a biography of the police officer who committed suicide, BIO1E would pose the question of whether to formulate the subject as an event instead. Incidentally, the subject is already formulated as the event ("death of..."), so we're past BIO1E issues. The delete side needs to prove how the event isn't notable or how it doesn't merit a separate article for some important reason. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's just a regular suicide. There is not even any evidence that the death was connected with the storming of the Capitol.  It might be, but Wikipedia is above that kind of synthesis or repeating press speculation. SpinningSpark 19:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nominator. Despite being the case of suicide, subject itself is not notable and does not satisfy required criteria.-- Melaleuca alternifolia  |  talk  20:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge into a single article titled Deaths of Howard Liebengood and Jeffrey L. Smith. These are not necessarily independently notable events, but their notability is multiplied when they are treated collectively, since they reflect a series of police suicides in proximity to the Capitol attack. BD2412  T 03:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be down with that if the articles are ultimately kept. The articles even use much of the same references and don't seem to be in a need of expansion anytime soon. Love of Corey (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is something I suggested on the talk page prior to the AfD. The other of the first two suicides. I think would be a satisfactory resolution to the perceived problem. Also okay would be a merger with a daughter article in the attack area such as Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack. It appears problematic to outright delete when the information included here (mainly the information in the Smith article), were it not included here, could (and would) simply be included in another article, i.e. a de facto merger would occur, and a regular merger is better. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep /editor has !voted; this is a comment/ Hi, I am responding to the suggestion to merge Howie and Jeff into one article. This should not happen.  As recently related in news sources, Jeff Smith was attacked by protesters, and medical evidence now shows that the attack was the proximate cause of his death.  This makes his death different, and much more significant than that of Officer Liebengood.  This is not to minimize the suffering that Officer Liebengood went through, more that, like Officer Sicknick, the science now shows that Officer Smith died as a direct result of the Capitol riots.  Thanks for taking my view into consideration, and inviting me to comment.  Esvabird (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But Smith's death isn't being reclassified into a homicide, is it? Love of Corey (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC) It is being investigated now.  There are plenty of secondary sources noting this.  I believe it will be, and two suspects -- the two suspects sued by widow Erin Smith -- will be charged with manslaughter.  This is a very complicated and forensically significant issue.  Please do not over simplify with such witty responses.  Charges do not happen overnight, or even in a week.  Esvabird (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * delete most of the keep comments around the award should be discarded because they incorrectly assume an individual rather than collective award. Absent that, none of the keep votes overcome the clear blp1e argument. Spartaz Humbug! 11:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO1E (not BLP1E which doesn't apply here because the subject of the ostensible biography [which this article is not] is dead) has been addressed with an also clear argument that the articles are not biographies, but that the subjects are events instead. Incidentally, WP:BIO1E also says if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Spartaz the award was a collective one Congress Honors Officers Who Responded to Jan. 6 Riot.That is Congressional Gold Medal was given to the  U.S. Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia officers not a single individual. We cannot have  individual articles for all those who received  it will be in hundreds.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep under the GNG. The topic is analyzed by the New York Times (Did He Die in the Line of Duty?) and many other news orgs. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:BLP1E. No sustained news coverage.  The award was a collective award.  Wikipedia does not maintain a page for every person who ever received one collective award.  Non-notable guy.XavierItzm (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is sustained coverage at least of Smith's suicide August (the other nominated article). — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Abductive and others. BD2412's idea about a merger with the parallel article on Smith may have merit. Feoffer (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing notable about this death. The Congressional Gold Medal was not awarded directly to this officer. Medals were awarded to the Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police Department. Separate medals would be displayed in the Smithsonian and the Capitol. TFD (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete A non-story, missing How, Where and Why, also a bit rude to hype a regular person's suicide (same goes for the completely different article whose deletion tag links here for some dumb reason). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Continuous coverage, Biden remarked on these two officer's deaths in the signing ceremony, their names are noted in the award bill, Smith's wife is taking matters to court. Even if we wanted to, we can't humanly hype this any more. This is a decent subject. Edit: ...the only rude thing of note here is your approach to the article where you accused a complete neophyte of lying (you know that edits have attributions I suppose). Not everyone starting out has the competence to present information in a sufficiently rigorous way, divorced from personal biases and impressions, it's something that's learned; doesn't mean "lying" and "fabrication". — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Smith's article was humanly more hyped up until minutes ago. Editors changed "precipitating event" to "direct proximate cause of death", as if that's even a possible thing. Bunch of OR about mens rea, a brain injury becoming brain injuries, and more. Complete shit magnet (though that one at least includes the actual cause of death now). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And you fabricated or helped spread at least some of that "proximate cause" nonsense while calling alleged assailants "assailants", not some neophyte, along with repeatedly misusing "insurrection". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * made up the rest of what I fixed, and has been here since October, long enough to know WP:Verifiability. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't remember adding the words "assailants" and "insurrection"; perhaps I interacted with them during some copyedit. I also didn't add "proximate cause", and I propagated it only from the body where it had been included to the lead where this (intended) information (appropriately presented) is due, and I admit I did it uncritically, basically a copy paste operation. However the "proximate cause" wording is not just "Yet more bullshit" (bringing a bit of an unnatural... ferment... to this somber topic don't you think? ...while commenting on "rude" and "hype") -- it is contained in the actual doctor's report (page 15 ), which quite possible the original adder was influenced by. Not ideal secondary sourcing maybe (even that?) but far from bullshitting. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, I just came here to vote and move on, not to be sidetracked by the resident polling badger. You keep seeing things like a leftist, and I'll keep reading them in literal dictionary English. Good luck swaying the next one, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't exactly seem like a non-story missing How, Where and Why based on your edits, and this discussion, eh? Article simply needs improvement like virtually any article. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The one about Liebengood is the one I seem to have said that about, you persistent misinformation vector. The What of the Smith story is even less clear if you honestly believe that green psychobabble, saying it was not a suicide. If you need any more help recalling how you do a lot of things I consider phony, check your own edit history for yourself, please. And in case some other hapless innocent English noob gets what you're twisting twisted, a cause of depression is one thing. A cause of death is a second and entirely different thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let's cool down the rhetoric, everyone! WP:NOTFORUM. Love of Corey (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I hate to prolong an already lengthy discussion, but the significance of the award in this particular case has been seriously challenged, and that affects more than a couple of !votes. There's also the question of whether a merger would be appropriate; and if so, to what target?
 * Keep /editor has !voted; this is a comment/ I am late to the conversation because its fall and I have other things to do than be insulted and called names. I am sorry you feel that you know more than Dr Jonathan Arden, the former Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia, and Dr Sheehan, a renowned physician psychiatrist with an expertise in line of duty emotional trauma.  The reality, if you read the primary sources, is that both have opined that the proximate cause of Jeff Smith's death is the assault, leading to TBI and post-concussive syndrome, not the suicide.  And, I am so sorry that you think that everyone spends all night on wikipedia and thus should know all the obscure rules about articles, etc.  I thought I was contributing to a noble cause of increased knowledge, the purpose of wikipedia.  If InedibleHulk feels so strongly that he is smarter, more knowledgeable, more correct, perhaps he can just take over editing all of wikipedia his or himself.  PS - not a good look and not good encouragement to a newbe like me.  Actually makes me want to have nothing to do with you or this entire wikipedia project.  Finally, onto the keep.  Sorry, when the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives (who is the author of the bill), both reference Jeff Smith and Howard Liebengood in the bill signing, and the bill actually mentions their names in the bill, the fact that it may have some general applicability to other police does not diminish that this award was for them.  All the spouses of the other LEOs were not invited, the spouses of Liebengood, Smith, Evens and Sicknick were invited.  Because the award was for THEM.  There pages should be kept.  This is a truly meaningful event. Esvabird (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is one of only three WP:Core content policies, nothing obscure. In the time it took you to write that sarcastic reply, you could have learned them all, no all-nighter needed. If a source doesn't say something, simply don't make it up, like most basically competent Wikipedians don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 12:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment That point about hundreds of other cops getting the same award this one's previously-supposed notability loosely hinged upon does pretty much seal the deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll have to agree. An article about the award itself, probably with some summaries about notable recipients, would definitely be more notable than these, based on this argument. Love of Corey (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: the main deletion nomination here should be seen as that of Death of Jeffrey L. Smith, because this article has been worked on much more, is much more developed, has more references, than Death of Howard Liebengood. It's absurd to delete the former based on arguments that seem to center on the latter or don't demonstrably address the former as well. It's very possible that several participants have missed that this is a bundled AfD, and haven't even read the Smith's suicide article. Because of how the nomination is formatted, the fact that this AfD concerns two articles is easy to miss, and I have to reiterate that it's problematic (and possibly disputable). — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pinging you as all of the participants who have supported keeping based on the award as a reason for notability, in light of the relister's comment that the significance of the award in this particular case has been seriously challenged. This is true -- since this discussion has begun it was clarified that Howard Liebengood and Jeffrey L. Smith are not in fact recipients of this award; they however, were individually noted in the text on the bill, and Biden remarked on their deaths during the signing ceremony. Knowing this, it's probably fair that you get a chance to update your !votes and/or share any additional thoughts on notability, possibly based on other arguments. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I !voted keep based not on the award being a reason for notability in my mind, but based on the fact that there must've been a larger consensus than one AfD that decided so for it to be listed. If this discussion can override such a larger consensus, or if no such consensus can be found, then my !vote should be read as a delete as I do not personally believe this should lead to independent notability. I don't agree that the distinction between "individual recipient" and a "named member of a group recipient" is warranted. A person named as a reason an award is being awarded to a group basically gets the award. I think that any argument to delete/merge should hinge on the award's notability itself. Read this and my above !vote how the closer/others will - and feel free to ask for any further clarification. I agree that the award's notability has been seriously challenged - I question whether this venue can overturn that determination by the larger community and I disagree with the technicality of "individual" versus "named member of a group" award. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still good with a keep, but my enthusiasm is lessened; I wouldn't be upset by a merge to another appropriate article. I'm fairly agnostic on which, several good candidates have been suggested. I think the leading candidates are Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack and Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. TJRC (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * On merger: Two different merger outcomes are possible:
 * horizontal: Deaths of Howard Liebengood and Jeffrey L. Smith, per
 * or under a different name such as Suicides in the Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack
 * vertical:
 * to Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack
 * to (under a new level 2 header) Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack
 * I think that all of these are good options; it's important that good merge targets exist, and the fact that multiple exist is not something that can hinder consensus. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and vertical merger: The coverage has involved these two officers, and keeping them as part of relevant pages seems most appropriate based on arguments here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirby777 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment - I !voted keep not just on the basis of the award but on the general coverage, which I expect to continue. I do not agree that "I think that any argument to delete/merge should hinge on the award's notability itself"  DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Suicide among capitol police is incredibly rare. This makes this event deeply significant to understanding the aftermath of the January terrorist attacks AND our current political climate.  Merge is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:af20:7500:c982:f6ea:7161:ab92 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Congressional Gold Medal meets WP:ANYBIO. This award actually makes the man notable beyond his death and the article could be moved to just Howard Liebengood.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out above, though, Liebengood was not awarded that medal. TJRC (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, this suicide has extensive coverage in reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:SPLIT and WP:BLP1E issues aside, this article is a stub and all of the content has been merged with Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack. Mysticair667537 (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * delete even though it does have coverage in news, it does not mean the suicide is notable. Sea Ane (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename the page Howard Liebengood per bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep with caveat - I was going to close, but I felt that it might be better to do an effective summary and allow a 2nd opinion.
 * Short version: Based on the arguments presented the two articles just about meet the policy basis to exist. From an editorial perspective, it seems the the community may wish to engage in a merge discussion and some of the content has been included in Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack. There is not sufficient enough consensus here to establish whether or not this is sufficient or whether another approach should be taken.


 * Long version: This discussion has proceeded for 1 month and relisted and I don't see any new arguments being brought forward. Numerically things are pretty even and the discussion basically revolves around three points:
 * does the conferring of a Congressional Medal merit inclusion based upon WP:ANYBIO?
 * does WP:BLP1E apply here?
 * are the events rather than the individuals sufficiently notable?


 * On the first point, many keep !votes suggested the award was sufficient enough to imbue notability. As was pointed out the the conferring of the congressional medal was to a collective and not individually; being part of a group awarded a highly prestigious award where the individuals deaths were expressly named. A strict interpretation of this suggests this single event may not be enough on it's own but it is certainly a contributing factor to notability.


 * Regaring whether BLP1E applies here. There are several points.
 * The individuals are deceased.
 * The individuals deaths occurred within the last 9 months.
 * The articles focus on the death of the individuals rather than the individuals themselves.


 * WP:BDP states:


 * The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside
 * -- with additional point of -- only apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide


 * I'm not aware of any consensus to extend the BLP policy in regards to these individuals and the nature of the suicides is not under any dispute so as has been noted the policy doesn't apply.


 * The events of Liebengood and Smiths deaths have been raised consistently over a 9 month period, with articles relating to their deaths, a legal case by jeffery smiths family, the politicizing of their deaths, the conferring of the awards to the capitol police and their explicit acknowledgement by the President, in relation to other suicides, editorial boards opinions in relation to police suicide more broadly, whether or not suicides should be considered deaths in the line of duty and the naming of a wellness fund after liebengood. The event of their deaths, are notable enough in their own rights to meet the requirements of both WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E even when the latter does not apply for the reasons noted.


 * Addressing the possible precedent set by the 1998 capitol shooting, as Barkeep49 noted in his close in that AfD the keep votes in that discussion had not explained why WP:BIO1E did not apply, which has occurred here in this discussion.


 * Towards the end of this discussion, there does seem to be room for a discussion around potentially merging these articles. The events of their deaths are temporally proximal and by this point they are referred to in tandom. Some of the content has been included in Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack. There is not sufficient enough consensus here to establish whether or not this is appropriate or whether another approach should be taken.


 * Based on the arguments presented that has been examined above the articles as they stand meet the minimum standards from a policy perspective but I would encourage the community to discuss merging the articles which would be valid from an editorial perspective.Seddon talk 00:50, 14 September 2021 (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.