Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Brennan


 * 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. There seems to be consensus that this is "the canonical exception" to 1E. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Howard Brennan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for notability for two years, and fails WP:BIO1E. This article relies on primary sources: there is very little significant coverage of the person (as opposed to his testimony) in secondary sources. StAnselm (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  02:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  So  Why  07:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  So  Why  07:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Keep This article is mentioned directly in policy as an example that is an exception to WP:1E. I think this is a WP:Pointy AFD because the article was used in a discussion here: Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin. That said, WP:1E states:

"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

"When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, 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."

Casprings (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't pointy - the article was tagged for notability for two years. In any case, I don't see a need to withdraw the nomination. Clearly, if this article gets deleted, it will need to be removed as an example from WP:1E. StAnselm (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I am extremely dubious whether he was independently notable. The whole article is about the murder of JFK and his role as a witness to it.  His assassination was one of the most significant of the 20th century: I can only think of that of the Archduke Rudolf in 1914, which triggered WWI as more so.  It might be better merged into an article on the assassination or on the Warren Commission that investigated it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Archduke Ferdinand. But the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand article does name Count Franz von Harrach as an eyewitness (from whom we know the Archduke's last words), but he doesn't have an article (though, as a count, we might expect him to be independently notable). StAnselm (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep Given the large number (and popularity) of the conspiracy theories associated with this assassination (and how seriously Brennan undermines those theories IMHO), it seems reasonable to go into detail on his life. (Which would be too cumbersome to include in another article.) A lot of the details of his life are relevant to the assassination (including the eyesight issue). He's been called the "star" witness of the Warren Commission. Ergo, it's reasonable to keep given the significance of this event.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added several sources that aren't primary, all of the newspaper stories contain significant coverage of Brennan, the book mentions are shorter. —valereee (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the GNG. Is literally the canonical exception to 1E. Hobit (talk)


 * 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.