Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Stevie Ray Vaughan


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 08:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Death of Stevie Ray Vaughan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

In no way should this fork stand on its own as an article. This isn't exactly a POV fork, but it certainly suggests that we're a fansite. Who else has a separate article on their death--it's not exactly Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge anything that needs to be said and not already into main article on Vaughn. His death does not need its own article. Lady  of  Shalott  05:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's where it came from. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There does seem to be a lot to say about it, given the length of the article and the number of sources. I don't like the amount of focus of WP on celebrities and popular music, but I can't think of a reason in policy to delete this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. A very well-sourced article. "Who else has a separate article on their death"? How about Category:Deaths by person?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it's well-sourced--but that doesn't mean it should stand on its own. His career is equally well-sourced and needs no separate article. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like lots of people are fans of his death, as well as his music. I don't like it either, but don't see the reason to delete the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fans of his death," I don't understand that at all (sounds a bit creepy, actually). It seems to me that in this discussion "well-sourced" is taken to be the same thing as "independently notable". The case of Kurt Cobain, of Michael Jackson, it's not difficult to argue that those are different from those of SRV. For example, the death of SRV is remarked on as the death of SRV--for Cobain and Jackson, it was also the manner of their deaths, the circumstances, etc. What the creator has done is cull every single detail, about the helicopters, the weathers, the pilots, the very clothes that the occupants were wearing, verify it, and stick it in the article. Then, they forked it out. But that there is an overwhelming number of verified minutia does not mean the topic is remarkable. Finally, look at the references and the bibliography. (Disregard everything after note 24--that's stuff copied from the main article and much of it is directed to his life, not to his death: Ann Richards proclaimed his birthday SRV day, not the day of his death.) You'll notice that except for that one book about "Falling stars" there is nothing there that actually addresses his death other than a news event. They're newspapers, they're obituaries, they're books about him and his music. That's obviously not so for Kurt Cobain, for instance. Where is the book that discusses his death as an independent topic? "Well-sourced"--of course; SRV was well covered, and so his death was as well. But his death, as sad as it was (and I remember what I was doing when I read the news), is not an independent topic. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;The Stevie Ray Vaughn article is already quite long, so I think a merge is inappropriate and this topic should exist as a daughter article, if at all.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The main article is 97K, and I've deleted the unrelated parts. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, summarizing, it's long and well-sourced. This goes for lots of deaths, fortunately, see for instance Ted Kennedy, though the current editor can take a lesson in economy from that article. Can anyone argue that SRV's death has anything in it at all that makes it notable as an independent topic? I have yet to see that argument. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing WP:SPLIT, therefore not really a separate, independent article. Plus it was an unnatural death of a celebrity. P.S. Ted could do with a split himself; his article is 176K. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SPLIT. Merging this into the main article would make it much too long.  71.17.141.228 (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Above comment was me. Forgot to log in.  Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

KittyRayVaughan (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article stands up on its own in regards to information, length, and readability.  I learned something and that's what wikipedia is for, apparently.  Unless the article is kept in its original form, I think a loss of information would occur with a merge, so that's not wanted.  There's no valid reason for deletion.  If a guitarist hasn't had his own entry for his unnatural death at wiki before, then let SRV be the first!  There's no policy against it.
 * Withdraw nomination since this is going nowhere. This is one of those rare AfDs where I can't help but wonder where, in all these words, the actual arguments are. Maybe next time we should split off his life? That's getting kind of long too. Of course, one could consider trimming the enormous amount of trivia from the account of his death, or just get copyright clearance to reproduce every single document associated with it. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2011 (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.