Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Schur


 * 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. X clamation point  01:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Marvin Schur

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


 * Delete. A sad death, but one event is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Please also note the comments by this Admin WWGB (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a news story, not an encyclopedia item. Looie496 (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS Lets  drink  Tea  02:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This issue has already been decided by administrator MBisanz . This is WWGB's third attempt to do away with this article. Once after redirecting it to an article of his own, second after trying to delete the same article that he created after redirecting Marvin Schur (which was decided in Articles for deletion/Death of Marvin Schur by administrator  MBisanz ) and now after having repeatedly losing the debates is trying to delete the original article that he has failed to have removed so many times before using the same misleading information and failed arguments that he has tried in the past. If you feel that the article is presented or written in a way that displeases you then help edit and clean it up. Do some of your own research and constructively add to it. Don't just go around passing judgement and opinion on others efforts without fully understanding the story or the Wikipedia policies that many throw around so loosely in a vain attempt to support their arguments without reading them first or researching the precedent that supports this articles continued existence. --Simpotico (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I guess you prefer to ignore the comment by MBisanz  that "Death of Marvin Schur was clearly determined not to be notable"?  WWGB (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP I can appreciate both Simpotico's and MBisanz' points of view. MBisanz was after all the deciding arbitrator in this debate to delete WWGB's article and from the looks of it he concurred with my assessment and recommendation to delete WWGB's article/topic entitled "Death of Marvin Schur" and redirect it back to the original article, Marvin Schur. And I believe that I even went so far as to agree with WWGB in principle that the article they created, Death of Marvin Schur lacked "notability/not news" within the narrow context that they represented it. But WWGB has only presented half the story and in a manner that may have taken the administrators words slightly out of context.


 * MBisanz' comments to your question were in the first part, "The article Death of Marvin Schur was clearly determined not to be notable..." I couldn't have agreed more. Like I said, the context in which WWGB presented the material it was clearly not notable and inappropriate for Wikipedia. But in the second part, the part WWGB left out, MBisanz stated, "the discussion did not express any view on Marvin Schur, although it looks to me like a weak article." I agree, it needs work, but he did not say that it was "not notable" as per the argument WWGB makes in this debate and the standard to which it should rise to in order to justify deletion. Which is likely why, in good faith, WWGB moved the article in the first place in order to help justify their position. Nor is this a case of nobody working on it WP:NOEFFORT. But as for the sake of debate here again is my argument in chief, again:


 * Looie496, your statement fails to raise any standard or articulable fact to justify deletion other than to express your lay opinion with your vote. See, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC


 *  Lets drink  Tea , likewise, your statement and direction to a not news policy fails to raise any standard or articulate fact to justify deletion other than to express your lay opinion with your vote. See, WP:JUSTAPOLICY.


 * WWGB, I disagree with your "not notable" argument and redirect you back to the policy you cited with your vote, WP:NOTE.


 * Under Wikipedia's, General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Marvin Schur has clearly met this burden as well as the criteria for notability including; significant reliable coverage from sources independent of the subject to include but not limited to the AP, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, FOX and the BBC for a period of time in excess of three months including a March 18th story on CNN.com during the debate over the deletion of the article "Death of Marvin Schur."


 * Under Wikipedia's, Notability requires objective evidence WP:NOBJ, Marvin Schur has again clearly met the burden of notability via, "Substantial coverage in reliable sources" such as to constitute "objective evidence" per repeated and continued coverage in the; AP, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, FOX and the BBC.


 * I believe that any application of Wikipedia's WP:NOT policy is incorrect for this argument. I quote, "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event..." Marvin Schur's death and the events surround it were hardly routine news nor was it tabloid journalism. And yes, the event was notable and Marvin Schur was the unfortunate central figure of the story. Articles have not been created about other individuals central to the story such as the mayor, city manager or power employees involved because their notoriety are all incidental to that of Marvin Schur. Additionally, the story of Marvin Schur's death extended past his demise from hypothermia and into continuing coverage of criminal investigations, political action and legislation including Michigan State House Bill 4384, public discourse and acts of charity just to name a few.


 * Precedent does exist on Wikipedia for individuals either solely or partially notable for their method of death; such as, convicted murderer John Albert Taylor who was executed by the state of Utah by firing squad (yes, and I know that there is a Wikipedia policy that provides guidance for criminals).


 * Precedent does exist for an individual solely famous for one even such as Jessica McClure who ,nearly 23 years ago now, as an 18 month old child fell into a Texas well and was rescued after much media attention.


 * I could go on. But Wikipedia's policy on deletion, of articles about "People notable only for one event", Notability (people), as cited in other user's arguments is clear and goes further as to illustrate the circumstances surrounding the appropriate deletion of a biography of a person of only minor notoriety such as the camera operator of the Rodney King beating, George Holliday. Marvin Schur's death and the obvious role he played in the story, is hardly minor or insignificant to the story and the fact that the events surrounding his death led to multiple, multiple news accounts cannot be ignored. Also, the fact that the article on Marvin Schur has received so much attention and debate within the Wikipedia community and among users on its relevance within the Wikipedia project because of the very nature of the media attention and notoriety only further supports its continued existence; not to mention that Marvin Schur's Wikipedia entry received mention in national media coverage itself.


 * There is significant enough information to support an entry on Marvin Schur within the Wikipedia project. I direct your attention to the Deletion guidelines for administrators policy under Deciding whether to delete, number 3: "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it" (MBisanz has been dragged into this one whether he likes it or not) and number 4: "When in doubt, don't delete."


 * But hey, stranger things have happened, you have to agree. We're still having this debate and articles on topics that have had books and "real" journal articles written about them have gone on to be deleted, go figure. I realize that this project is a playground to some but the honest efforts here being made by all parties in this debate are only helping to strengthen the integrity and quality of Wikipedia. --A. Poinçot (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I can see where, potentially, Death of Marvin Schur might come back as an article by A.Poincot if the incident leads to reforms to prevent power companies from disconnecting the juice without checking on the customer; and in that event, I don't think a nomination by WWGB or anyone else would go very far. There is no relevance to the outcome of the prior debate on the other article, and I don't see any evidence that  MBisanz  actually made a "decision" at all, and here we are again.  While the article about the incident was plausible, the article about Mr. Schur himself would not be.  We owe a debt of gratitude to all of our vets, particularly to the veterans of World War II.  Being a medic during the war, winning a Purple Heart, and serving his country, Marvin Schur was a good man.  However, we have no policy of inherent notability for all veterans of WW2 or any other war.  I can only suggest that the incident be mentioned elsewhere, such as an article about death from hypothermia. Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete subject is non-notable as discussed here and per WP:ONEEVENT. Very few biographical details are known about this person and only his death received coverage. The article about his death has already been deleted, if the event was not notable, certainly the biography is not notable as well. Additionally, the biography article was only recreated to evade the imminent deletion of the Death of Marvin Schur article. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bay City, Michigan. This may very well be a legitimate search term, and the fundementals of the story are already covered there. I don't see this supporting a separate page per WP:ONEEVENT (as already cited) and WP:NOTNEWS. 71.192.250.255 (talk) 08:04, 25 March 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.