Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Ingram


 * 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 consenus. --Ezeu 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey Ingram
Artciel does not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Philip  Gronowski  Contribs  21:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I made the article, Jeffrey Ingram as an article for examples on amnesia. I will not edit amneisa until Jeffrey Ingram is an article that will stay.--WhereAmI 22:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (moved from AFD Talk page)
 * Comment. I'm voting "keep" but I want to comment on your misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.  The process of collaborative editing means that, inevitably, you will sometimes be displeased by the results.  If you can't deal with that, you won't be happy here.  That applies regardless of how this particular AfD comes out.  Some of your edits to Amnesia may be disputed or reverted or edited mercilessly by other Wikipedians.  I hope you'll stay here and contribute to that article and others, learning to shrug off the times when you don't get your way. JamesMLane t c 10:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is an important article detailing an amnesiac case. WP:BIO talks of "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". This case was all over the US Cable News networks for days. It does, however, require a cleanup. Jpe|ob 01:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Edward Wakelin 02:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless other sources and clean up is done. Arbusto 03:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Badagnani 03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Encyclopedically non-notable amnesiac case. Amnesia is not a very rare condition, and this person has not attained renown or notoriety for this. News coverage, even by major sources, does not automatically equal encyclopedic notability as news outlets have very different inclusion criteria from encyclopedias (just as a lot of material from an encyclopedia isn't newsworthy, much news content isn't suitable for an encyclopedia).
 * See e.g. Articles_for_deletion/George_Allen_Smith and the subsequent deletion review.


 * The main sources for this article is does even qualify as a straight news story, as the news broadcast primarily involves the subject using the news media to help his own situation Bwithh 03:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In journalism, News Directors and Editors choose what goes on, not the subjects. --Marriedtofilm 05:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As I emphasized in the my first comments on this, news outlets have very different criteria for content inclusion than encyclopedias. My second point is that this kind of public appeal for help may be sensationalism acting in the cause of public service, but is not substantive journalism. Bwithh 05:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of news coverage of this subject being "not substantive journalism" is POV and you're entitled to it. --Marriedtofilm 05:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Bwithh. --Brad Beattie (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Bwithh. Also, VERY badly written; so badly, there doesn't seem to be even a whisper of what's supposed to be notable about the guy until partway through. --Calton | Talk 04:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, ephemeral news story. Only 1 Google News hit. Punkmorten 07:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please it is important deailing with a amnesiac case covered by many news networks Yuckfoo 01:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a news report database Bwithh 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jpeob. This reminds me of the Farris Hassan case (putting that on my watchlist in case anyone gets any afd ideas) --Marriedtofilm 05:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If Guy Goma can stay, Jeffrey Ingram can stay, too. &lt;KF&gt; 23:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Example of keep argument from the Guy Goma afd: "Keep there are far more trivial events that are kept on Wikipedia. Keep!" i.e. The Pokemon defence ad nauseam. Ridiculous article subject. Bwithh 05:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm. As I have so far succeeded in excluding Pokemon from my sphere of knowledge altogether I'm rather glad that, should the need arise, I can look up any Pokemon character on Wikipedia. Bad example. &lt;KF&gt; 20:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major news coverage. --JJay 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * see my comments above Bwithh 01:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw your comments before I typed mine. In case you want to see my comments, I've now followed your lead by underlining the important bits. --JJay 01:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * delete. The subject used, and was used by network TV to find his family. I don't care which way around it was. I'm happy there was a happy ending, but there is nothing inherently notable about this individual, the before, or the aftermath. I see Goma as different. He was made famous by a monumental cock-up at the BBC, and was seen around the world. it was the nature which makes it a memorable and notable event; there was cock-up after cock-up. Newsworthy enough for the BBC to report on the booboo in later bulletins. Goma is now a sought after commentator ;-) Ohconfucius 06:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject's notability resulting from media coverage was ephemeral, but I accept ephemeral notability as a basis for keeping an article. JamesMLane t c 10:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * delete. This is a news story that will become obsolete as soon as the dust settles. Bytebear 21:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your prediction that this case will be obsolete is noted. Some might think that this case will be of interest to anyone interested in amnesia long after the dust settles.  --Marriedtofilm 21:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Bytebear, the page you cite (WP:DUST) was evidently not accepted as policy or even a guideline. Would you delete such articles as Douglas Corrigan?  I think it's valuable to have a record of old newsmakers who have since become "obsolete". JamesMLane t c 03:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I did see that WP:DUST has been determined to be non-policy, but I think the concept still has merit. What did Ingram do that was significant?  What has the news said about him lately?  Should we have an article for every person who has been on national television?  15 minutes of fame does not warrant an article.  I can go streak down Santa Monica Blvd, and it would probably make national news (well, maybe not in LA), but is it significant, particularly in the media hungry environment we now live in? Bytebear 01:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you did that, it seems you might get an article. See Robert Opel. --Marriedtofilm 01:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If only Andy Warhol were alive today. Bytebear 23:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. says he has had dissociative amnesia before in stressful suituations. Not that unusual. Put a brief mention in the Amnesia article. Hope life goes better for him, but this is an encyclopedia, not the weekly news. I can't see how his news story will last like those of Judge Crater, Steve Brodie or Floyd Collins. Edison 21:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, many non-notable things receive coverage in major news outlets. Like, for instance, this fellow. Lord Bob 00:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Notable documented case of amnesia --RedBirdI55 14:22, 2 November 2006 (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.