Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Cassidy


 * 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. Nja 247 09:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Martin Cassidy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a person who, if if he were alive, would not be notable enough for an article. A person who was never written about in any newspaper or other reliable source prior to his death. A person who, but for the manner of his death, would not get a second glance from us. Creating an article that only uses articles about his death and whose content is 40% about his death has problems of undue weight and BLP violations. His loved ones should not have to face the prospect of Wikipedia enshrining his death for all time. I have removed evidence of his death and deleted all prior revisions, although admins can see them. Judge the article as it is. Is this person notable enough for an article? If not, then the fact that he suffered an embarrassing death does not make him notable. Thatcher 02:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 03:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ATren (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. He lived a life of quiet desperation, like 99.99% of us... Eddie.willers (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Eddie.willers (for the applicable standard), and Thatcher (for the content policy and the compassion). Risker (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Once you throw out the WP:BLP1E articles written about him, the remainder fail WP:ENTERTAINER / WP:BIO. B figura  (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:B(L)P1E. Rd232 talk 04:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: per all of the above, especially Thatcher's nomination and WP:BLP1E; this isn't why we're here. (Became aware of this issue on WP:BLP/N). MastCell Talk 05:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands, as this appears to be a remnants of a near-libellous article. However, the number of awards he received as a comedian may qualify as notability. So I'm happy with an article being reposted, as long as it is notable for how he lived rather than how he died. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't violate the biographies of living people guideline/policy when the person in question is dead. I personally think the same should apply to dead people, but as long as the policy is not renamed, it doesn't. - Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Once you get rid of the freak context of his death completely fails wp:bio. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and my comment and others on BLP/N. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 15:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Thatcher and my comments at BLP/N FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with comment. I won't quarrel with removal of details regarding the person's death, and agree that including those details on the main page was in poor taste.  However, the article has now been modified to eliminate those details, and I think the article in its present state is fine.  I don't think we should delete his entire biography simply because he died in an embarrassing way.  There are several reliable sourcesa covering him, independent of the circustances surrounding his death.  See, e.g., City Life story from 2002 on his being named "Comedian of the Year" and 2008 article about his sketch comedy show.  Also while his death may be titillating, his obituary was published in major publications, including The Sun and Lancashire Telegraph.   Cbl62 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the comment above by Chris Neville-Smith: "by the number of awards he received as a comedian may qualify as notability. So I'm happy with an article being reposted, as long as it is notable for how he lived rather than how he died." That's exactly what has now been done, and the article as it now stands meets notability standards. We can't eliminate an article on a notable person simply because the circumstances of his death are embarrassing.  That would be a horrible precedent of content-based deletion that has nothing whatsoever to do with policies on BLP or libel.  Cbl62 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete in its current form as 1E. If we can find concrete notability for his life, okay then. Sceptre (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete while technically not a BLP, I think the principles of 1E should still apply particularly given the obvious potential harm to his living relatives preserving this article risks. Presuming there's still new articles about him 3-5 years from now then fine, but until then (and I think it's fair to say it's unlikely). There are of course many people who die in odd ways (or do other things) who get some minor coverage in major publications, we don't and shouldn't have articles on them. If there were evidence he were notable then fine but as demonstrated by the current version he wasn't. We only have one minor RS about him prior to his death and one minor award (not that awards are enough to demonstrate notability in the clear absence of RS). If he continued in his career, he may have been notable one day, sadly that never happened. Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, it is the only honorable course of action. Whatever404 (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article describes, quite reliably, a locally-active part-time standup comic who was a finalist (not a winner) of a local contest and had a show at the Edinburgh Fringe (one of around 650 comedy shows there, albeit a relatively successful one). I'm really not sure that's the sort of material we usually consider significant - the guidelines for this sort of article talk about "significant roles in multiple notable ... stage performances", or "unique, prolific or innovative contributions", which doesn't seem to be borne out by the sources. Shimgray | talk | 16:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly my analysis of the article. Per the nominator's comments, without the death related information, he does not meet our usual inclusion criteria. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as not meeting notability requirements per Shimgray. DreamGuy (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2009 (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.