Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaleb Schwade


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Kaleb Schwade

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per this discussion at the BLP noticeboard, the article, as currently written, should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. The individual is known only in context of the possible crime committed against them. If notability for the event is established, then the article should be redirected to reflect the event as a whole.Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 19:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I can think of very few instances where wikipedia should have an article about an infant; having an article whose purpose is to advertise an infant's abuse to the world is really beyond the pale, IMO. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unfortunately, this sort of thing is not infrequent--that this particular one had gotten Myspace attention does not make it notable. This is clear BLP violation, and I would call for a speedy deletion and oversight, under DO NO HARM.   DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete The 5 provided references don't support enough notability --Rirunmot 23:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Consider the parallels to the Terri Schiavo case. This is not BLP1E. This article from 2009 is not about a single incident, but about the boy's life, such as it is. This is about a volleyball tournament in Kansas named after the boy. There has been extensive coverage in reliable sources, not only of the incident, but of his life afterwards and related fundraising and of the proceedings leading up to a criminal trial, and with the cooperation of the boy's parents. This is not just a MySpace issue. This CD is part of the evidence of notability. And a good article about Kaleb Schwade may help prevent future instances of shaken baby syndrome by reminding people of the consequences of roughly shaking an infant. – Eastmain (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Schiavo became famous--multiple academic articles & even some books were written about her case. If this should ever occur here, then it would be notable    DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps the article should be moved to Kaleb Schwade case. — Eastmain (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. --Tom (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I don't think this is speediable BLP (or I would have deleted it a long time ago; I don't believe it has been at risk of HARMing anybody for quite some time, since I have done my best to keep it neutral and sourced and since Rob has just confirmed that the childcare provider is still pending trial), but I've been watching this one for several years, and it has never risen above the level of marginally notable. This child is the victim of a crime, and per WP:BLP the article should be about the event. But the event may not clear general notability guidelines, tragic though it is. My only concern with deletion is that I think the subject is popular enough that recreation is likely...and the new article might not be so basic. It gets at least a few to up to a couple of dozen views a day (see ). When I brought up my concerns at BLPN, I mentioned that I would merge it somewhere if there was somewhere good to merge it. I just can't find anywhere. I think if a suitable home for a brief reference could be found, a redirect to it would be ideal. (At which point this would become a keep, with redirect.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not harming anyone? Do you really think that this article doesn't harm Kaleb Schwade? Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I really do. Do you disagree, or is my language in some way confusing so you weren't sure if I was sincere? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I've got other stuff going on today, I'm just going to presume that you disagree and will want to know why I think it can do him no harm. First, Kaleb — bless his heart — is beyond knowing or caring about this article, and evidently he always will be. To quote the November 2009 article:


 * This does not mean that I do not believe he should be treated with dignity and respect. Far from it. I'm the one who brought up the article at BLPN in the first place, and I've been watching the article for years in part because of that concern. The people at most risk for harm from this article are the child's parents (who have like many parents in such cases chosen to publicize the matter, see and ; I'm sure I would, too, if he were my child and I hoped to get something positive about the tragedy), and the childcare provider, who has not yet been convicted in a court of law and may have done nothing wrong. (Rob's updates have made her less of an urgent concern for me, since she is evidently still pending trial and hasn't been quietly cleared.) This event has already been so widely publicized that it has a Snopes report . As Eastmain points out above, there are fundraisers in this child's name as well. Could this article be used to harm Kaleb in some intangible way? Surely, if it were used to belittle his experience in some way (I am reminded of the uproar a while back about the inclusion of a flippant nickname for Rachel Corrie), but this article is not belittling or even overly detailed. It is a straightforward recounting of previously published fact, more respectful of its subject even than this. I think it would be perfectly appropriate to mention him in a suitable article, with a redirect. I do think it's problematic under BLP, as his sole notability lies in his being a victim of a crime. But I do not think it is harming him, tangibly or intangibly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * keep, with redirect . I fully support Moon's position here, as a BLP there is an issue although imo there is no hurry to delete it, it has a value and it is going to attract a lot more attention in the near future, the next date for a trial is in a month, 23rd of Feb 2010, I do think a rename to perhaps some title with the trial in the name would perhaps work, the trial has dragged on for somewhere around three years and there has been many issues, like the arrest of the bailed suspect for a separate charge and the revoking of the bail, since the bail was revoked the accused has already spent a year in jail, also the way the prosecution has caused the trial to drag on for so long by refusing to give the defending lawyers necessary requested information, and it is not finished yet, after searching around for details regarding this crime I feel that although sadly this occurs to many children every year and although sad that fact is not notable but in the end the trial in itself may be notable. Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Horrible story, but the kid is just not notable. Comparison to the Schiavo case is inappropriate on so many levels.  Existence does not mean notable. Delete. Bearian (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2010 (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.