Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ike Densmore


 * 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Ike Densmore

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the article fails notability requirements for biographical articles, having no sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources. He was outed, and killed himself 3 months later, with no coverage before or after. Additionally fails notability for WP:CRIME due to never been convicted and the actual law violated not even established. Wikipedia is not a pillory for shaming of individuals. There have been several articles in the past just like this one and all have been deleted. Legitimus (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 17.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep He was in a report on ABC7 in November 2012, and english national newspaper The Daily Mail wrote an article covering his death in mid-2013 (Which was under suspicious circumstances as stated in the article), 3 months after he died, so saying there was no coverage before or after his death is untrue. There was also lot of local and national sources inbetween these dates. Passes WP:GNG because he has had coverage in multiple reliable sources for multiple events for 2 years AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment GNG disagrees with BIO. Wheras BIO requires secondary sources, GNG only requires "sources" so a pile of primary sources count. Business Insider, Redwood Times, Washingtonian, ABC7, Times-Standard, and Daily Mail have all covered the subject. I don't think Wikipedia should be so inclusive as in . That said, I don't think it makes much sense to delete this article.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain what you mean. Are you saying this article might have met GNG, but it's a biography so GNG is not enough, and it has to meet BIO criteria?Legitimus (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldnt |This be a secondary source? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For this discussion, primary sources are the contemporaneous journalistic sources. Secondary sources would be academic journals or independent books written years after the fact that really examine details; none of those exist for this subject yet. The subject therefore meets GNG but not BIO. So far as I know, any given article would only have to meet one or the other. If there was a consensus that biographies had to meet BIO then huge subjects including Kim Kardashian wouldn't be notable anymore. (Except for maybe NACTOR there's not a criterion beyond GNG she could pass.) I totally support that interpretation but that's not what I've seen the consensus to be. I don't intend to take a position on this nomination for that reason. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 08:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree with your sentiment on that and the fact that complying with the rule would make Kardashian no longer notable sounds completely reasonable to me, and is rather telling about modern culture. In my opinion some people are best ignored and forgotten about, which I confess informs my opinion on this article we are discussing (as well as the ones like it before that were deleted).Legitimus (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The references are relatively few and discuss one unfortunate event.  There is nothing notable.--Rpclod (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Wikipedia is not news, and the level of deception here is just that of news articles, nothing of major lasting significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:Memorial and trivia. Kierzek (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; no long-term societal impact of these events either. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I was going to close this as delete but I felt compelled to also highlight WP:ONEEVENT. I see no WP:LASTING consequences to this event that would preserve this individual's notability in a wider context. Mkdw talk 17:42, 25 December 2016 (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.