Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg


 * 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 speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT #6. SKCRIT states that "Reasons for a speedy keep decision are:...6. The page/image is currently linked from the Main Page...".

This current Articles for Deletion discussion satisfies this criteria due to the fact that the article is currently linked from the first entry in the Main page's "In the news" section. I have no objection to this discussion being re-opened or relisted once the article is off of the main page, but at current this discussion should not be happening per policy. While the original close was not the best NAC, the end result was correct. If this article is so egregious as to require immediate discussion, this article's mention on the main page must be brought to WP:ERRORS and attain consensus there for its removal from the main page first. The SandDoctor Talk 01:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely unnecessary. Nothing unusual about the death. Vast majority of comments on the talk page are in favor of removal/merging/not needed. MartinezMD (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – For the first time in the United States AFAIK, a public figure is expected to lie in repose outdoors. There is still a lot the article has not covered. Her death as a subject clearly passes GNG. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also Procedural close as this AfD is unlikely to close in delete. The only logical outcome, besides keep, would be merge and redirect. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with nominator. Nothing notable about her death. WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies. If we must - a redirect or merge with Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be appropriate. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That discussion is be held on the talk page. This deletion discussion is wholly inappropriate unless you are actually considering deleting the page. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Please read WP:DISCUSSAFD. Additionally I stated that I favor deletion. Lightburst (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy procedural close - there is an ongoing merge discussion that preceded this AFD. The nominator !voted "delete" in the merge discussion and then posted this nom. This AFD is a fork of the merge discussion. It should be closed and discussion should be kept in one place. Otherwise, we're wasting editor time and risk arriving at two different results. Lev!vich 15:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's nothing in particular that's especially unusual about her death. Maybe there could be an article about her funeral, but not her death. Rockin 15:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I plan to move the page to Death and funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Tuesday when she is expected to lie in repose out doors, a completely new thing I have never seen before. See also Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I support the proposed move to Death and funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. With several delete votes, I don't think this is able to be procedurally closed, but I think that the closer should recognize that merge and/or changing the subject discussions are occurring. --Enos733 (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

"The result was speedy keep. Separate from the merge discussion and the comments made below, and without prejudice to a future nomination, this nomination qualifies for Speedy keep: The page/image is currently linked from the Main Page. In such cases, please wait until the link is no longer on the Main Page before nominating. If the problem is urgent, consensus should be gained at WP:ERRORS to remove the link before nominating for deletion. The article is currently featured in Template:In the news. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)"
 * Speedy procedural close Can we please wait until the merge discussion is completed? I actually think this article might be better titled Impact of the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but let's at least discuss it in one place. —valereee (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – Ginsburg’s death isn’t a normal death of a Supreme Court justice, it’s sparked massive controversy and is dominating the news cycle. With all due respect, I’m fervently opposed to the deletion of this article. R. J. Dockery (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. There's clearly disagreement as well as procedural requests. The article is a work in progress approaching 80 sources. I say keep discussing on article talk page(s) but close this for the time being. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural close per C&C and Levivich. See Talk:Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for now; it seems like this has sparked an outpouring of grief and controversy. Maybe we can reassess when the dust settles. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 15:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep even if we don't want to have this as a standalone article then the logical thing to do would be to merge it somewhere else or to redirect it to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There is no reason to delete it and any discussions about merges etc should happen elsewhere.  Hut 8.5  16:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear WP:CONTENTFORK does not need its own page. Celebrity deaths are rarely notable, even if they carry political ramification. Any notion that the article should be kept based on these political ramifications is WP:SYNTH. KidAd   talk  17:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly in CONTENTFORK is this supposed to have violated? Per WP:SPINOFF, Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary fork. Plenty of other places to have this content without needing a separate page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I closed this as speedy keep, but per request have reverted my non-admin closure. My original reason was


 * Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. This discussion has been re-opened for no good reason, as the merge discussion on the talk page is still ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ^ WP:PERABOVE KidAd   talk  22:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Why was this re-opened? A consensus was already reached that this article shouldn't be deleted. R. J. Dockery (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Ambox warning pn.svg — Duplicate vote: R. J. Dockery (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
 * Speedy delete/merge Insta-creation was not warranted. Reywas92Talk 00:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep The original close was correct; articles that are linked to the Main Page cannot be nominated for deletion. Not only that but there is a merge discussion taking place which should be allowed to run its course. P-K3 (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2020 (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.