Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Brandon Brown


 * 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. If the creator or anyone else would like the page to be userfied please let me know. J04n(talk page) 12:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Brandon Brown

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

per WP:NOT. The college player wasn't notable when he was alive, and his death, one among thousands of murders each year in the USA, doesn't seem anything more than a local affair  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 03:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG with multiple third party reliable sources on the subject. ESPN, USA Today, Fox Sports for example.  WP:NOT clearly does not apply as this is not (1) a first-hand report, (2) routine reporting, (3) a Who's Who, nor (4) a diary.  For a so-called "local affair" it sure is getting a lot of national coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 5.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  04:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Paulmcdonald, although I will note that I was not aware this was more than a local story until I saw those references. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 04:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:VICTIM; "The victim...consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event." - it appears the only well-documented "historical event" the victim participated in was his own murder. The documentation noted on the article is basically a wall of similar coverage containing issue related to only that one event.  Put 1,000 mentions down if you please, but it's still just one event.   Ren99    wha?  [[Image:Face-devil-grin.svg|20px]] 04:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the article is not about the victim, the article is about the crime itself. Were the article about the victim, you would have a case.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I've noticed quite a few "Murder of..." articles pass through here recently citing WP:NOT instead of WP:NNEWS. I'm a bit concerned at whether these articles meet the latter, particularly WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:EFFECT. Funny  Pika! 14:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Response can't speak to the other cases, but this case has had continued coverage at least as information comes up. It's a relatively recent event, so I'd hate to play crystal ball at this point.  Where one guideline stops, another one begins...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Points well taken. Now the question(s) becomes; "Is there need for a preponderance of articles concerning murders per se' each and every time"; 1) one occurs 2) is what we'd call "current" 3) someone, somewhere, has mentioned in sources that someone else, somewhere else heard about 4) has some social relevance or imperative that would merit it's need for an article over, say, similarly generated article for a non-sports figure, such as a brilliant lab student killed in a violent border clash with radical Canadian guerillas, or even regular ol' Kansas kid falls in hole and gets killed in China by unsolved bandits.  Now not to base this on "X has this, so Y has this too", but rather the entirety of "do we need it at all anyway in such volume"?  Must we languish in sullen news while we ponder here, and once it is solved, will it be of significance sufficient to maintain later, or are we simply creating a ghetto of articles to "get around to fixing again" later?  All just curios.   Ren99    wha?  [[Image:Face-devil-grin.svg|20px]] 19:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Need Wikipedia is not about what we "need" because, quite simply, we don't really "need" Wikipedia itself. We "want" Wikipedia.  As to some of the other articles you find interesting, you might read up on the 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing or maybe the story of Joseph (son of Jacob).  Not exact matches to what you reference, but not far off either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment "Want" and "Need" are conceptual ideals, each dependent on individual interpretation. The context in form above is simple convenience.  But there is no loss on the idea of use - is it useful for perpetuity, or is it simply there for perpetuity?  Dying on the moon is one thing, but if no one knew of it, what difference would it make or concern?  Like a bear in the woods, if not heard...is it really worth separating from some other bear event?  And of course, there is the besmirchment of another young man who participated in sports, and met an unfortunate, unsolved, and untimely end of violence.  Article after article of mysterious killings, etc in all proportions containing thus?  The facts are not even known in this particular article's events (note: "ongoing investigation")   Ren99    wha?  [[Image:Face-devil-grin.svg|20px]] 20:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe you're right. Gotta watch the Chewbacca reasoning.  Let's see who else comes along :)   Ren99    wha?  [[Image:Face-devil-grin.svg|20px]] 04:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at those: In short, there is nothing weak about the topic at all. It has significant, in-depthy, wide coverage and as new information develops it is continuously published.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Despite its title, the article is currently presented as a biography of Brandon Brown so its understandable how WP:VICTIM might be invoked. Articles such as this technically fall under the "Criminal acts" section of WP:EVENT which attempts to reconcile WP:GNG with WP:NOT#NEWS. That section states: "Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of 'breaking news', are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." The "above guidelines" referred to are WP:EFFECT (currently fails), WP:GEOSCOPE (passes), WP:INDEPTH (currently fails), WP:PERSISTENCE (currently fails), and WP:DIVERSE (passes). There is obviously some subjectivity in determining how these are collectively weighed, so if "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", my opinion is that this one falls short. Location (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Biography of victim That is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. WP:SOFIXIT comes to mind.
 * 2) WP:EFFECT argues that the event must have lasting effect. As mentioned above, it is a relatively new event and attempting to portray any lasting effect at this time would violate WP:CRYSTAL.  Because of that, the "Effect" argument states: "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."  Therefore, this does not apply.
 * 3) WP:INDEPTH is clearly passed with in-depth coverage in Sports Illustrated, Fox Sports, USA Today, and ESPN for starters.
 * 4) WP:PERSISTENCE is a re-hash of the "effect" argument above. I suppose I could say it could become a case study with the uniqueness of the football-related issues, but there is no way to tell until the trial is complete.  But if you want to check out a google search of "college football player murdered" you'll find that it's the #1 subject.
 * A biographical article titled after an event is still a biographical article. The burden to fix it is on those who think it should be kept. The SI and USA Today articles are lengthy and lend credence to WP:INDEPTH but I would like to see more than two. The Fox Sports and ESPN links are the same brief AP report immediately after the murder. I agree that it is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to create an article that you think will eventually pass WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE. I'm sure there are plenty of others who will agree with your position on this. Location (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should anyone be forced to wait to pass WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE when WP:GNG is surpassed already? Further, there is no "burden to fix" in AfD:  if it can be "fixed" then the article should be kept so that it can be fixed unless it violates some policy.  And as for wanting to see more than two, there are 12 sources on the page from local, regional, and national coverage.  Thanks for pointing out that the Associated Press thought it significant enough to write about and that ESPN agreed and picked up the story.  At least twice.  It made me look, it turns out The Huffington Post also seems to consider the story significant.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not WP:GNG is "surpassed" is not a matter of waving your hand and saying "it is so". WP:GNG refers to WP:WWIN which refers to WP:NOT#NEWS. Where there is a question as to whether an event covered in the news is noteworthy, then WP:EVENT, which include WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE, becomes the relevant guideline. There is no dispute that this has received news coverage, so the AP and Huff Post reports don't really add anything to the discussion. Location (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Now it's in the news too much to be notable?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Library for similar discussions, see Articles for deletion/Kelsey Smith, Articles for deletion/Murder of Emily Sander, Articles for deletion/Emily Sander.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Passing WP:GNG per continued coverage since it happened in 2012. it is not a n "local affair" ha recieved plenty of national attention.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Note: we gotta avoid: If "A,B,C then X,Y,Z", so discourse concerning other similar/dissimilar articles is moot. I have to again favor the arguments that are additionally presented that this is simply not an article space to retain at this time and hold firm to prior statements.  This type of event occurs/has occurred/will occur countless times in human history with no impact on Planet Earth save in passing.   Ren99    wha?  [[Image:Face-devil-grin.svg|20px]] 00:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barada (talk • contribs)
 * I'll bite How many times in the past have two football players from one college killed a football player from another college after a football game that led to nationwide coverage of the event by Sports Illustrated, USA Today, ESPN, Huffington Post, and Fox Sports? Additionally, you say we have to avoid comparison of this event to other events and then you immediately following compare it to other events.  Pick one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable murder of not notable person. - DonCalo (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment while I agree that the notability of the person in question is not enough to include (there is no article on Brandon Brown), what do you say to the significant coverage in the news of the event itself?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I find this deletion !vote to be insufficient as saying that it is a non notable murder etc is very easy to write but I think some examples on why it is not notable is needed then. Because from what I can see this case has recieved sufficient press and is notable beyond an average murder.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is an "argument without an argument" as outlined at WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, one of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per NOTNEWS, NOTMEMORIAL. My condolences to the subject's family and friends. Carrite (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Question how is this article either "news" or "memorial" ? We've already addressed WP:NOTNEWS above (it's not "journalism", "news reports", "who's who", nor "a diary") and as for WP:MEMORIAL this obviously is not a memorial to the victim.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You've already contended above that in your opinion NOTNEWS doesn't apply. I contend here that it does. Murder cases are big news events; those that have lasting social significance are regarded as subjects of sufficient magnitude to support stand-alone articles. The overwhelming majority, however, are generally regarded as tragic news events. It may be that the peculiar circumstances behind the killing, the football angle, is unusual enough to generate lasting coverage and analysis bigger than the residue of the single news event. In my opinion this does not rise to that level. Incorporating much of this same information into a biography of the victim would cause me less concern than would another addition to the plethora of True Crime Murder of... articles. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll also note the lead of this article is already set up to be a biography of the victim. Assuming there are a couple sources to be had between athletic department biographies and obituaries, why not flesh this out as a biography? That would, assuming the sources are out there — which they should be, an encyclopedic topic that would pass under GNG. Please do consider that. Note to closing administrator - if this doesn't close as no consensus or keep, please make sure the creator has an opportunity to have his work userfied. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The AFDs mentioned above seem to favor articles such as Murder of Kelsey Smith and Murder of Emily Sander rather than articles named solely for the victim.  Comments, anyone?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that this is definitly not a memorial article, And not news? once again, wikipedia is built on news so I have never generally understood why we have a NOTNEWS guideline. Anyway I think this is a murder that goes beyond your average murder, as seen by the coverage etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Paul, please read WP:BLUDGEON. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:VICTIM. this is just another murder, and the "long term" coverage is rather routine. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:VICTIM: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person."  The article is not about the victim but is about the crime, which is the "target article" that WP:VICTIM actually calls for.  WP:VICTIM clearly does not apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the part that says "It is okay to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy, or asking a question." You are quoting the wrong policy. I like WP:ALLARGUMENTS.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

if there was ever a classic example of WP:BLUDGEON, this is it. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry to all those effected here, but this is not the place to create a memorial. Meeting WP:GNG is not the end of it, the subject (the murder event) fails the inclusion policy WP:What Wikipedia is not though the event is newsworthy it has no enduring significance and has no place in the encyclopedia. LGA (was LightGreenApple)   talk to me  05:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; insignificant person, no long-lasting notability, one event. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I understand Paul McDonald's reasoning, but regardless of whether we judge it as a biography or as an event, it doesn't pass muster.  Nothing except breaking-news stories, and Wikipedia isn't the newspaper; the sustained coverage seen here is simply because the case keeps on going.  This shouldn't have a separate article unless it gets covered in books or academic journals, or unless stories in the news start referring to it and providing consistent coverage of it as a thoroughly past event, rather than as an integral part of something that's ongoing, such as men facing trial in his death.  Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, it was a news story. No, there is no indication it is of encyclopedic and lasting interest. Per WP:NOTNEWS. One event, involving a person no previously notable. Edison (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Memorial Please someone explain to me why Murder of Brandon Brown is a "memorial" and should be deleted but Murder of Kelsey Smith and Murder of Emily Sander are not "memorials" and should not be deleted. All I've read is "it's a memorial" and I keep asking, but no one answers "why" it is a memorial.  (I also get accused of asking too much, but that's another story)--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Rather than repeating all the very convincing and on point arguments already made here, let me make an analogy. College football players are seldom notable on their own merits, and this one is no exception.  If a fan of "Foo U."  was murdered by a couple fans from "Faa U.", would we be having this discussion?  NO.  Those fans have exactly the same notability as the ballplayer involved, none.  Murder happens every day.  It sucks, but it does.  End of story. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Even the coverage cited for the case is at best routine. No indication that this would get past WP:NOTNEWS, and the person's standalone notability is non-existent. Just like so many other "Murder of X" and "Shooting at Y" articles. There are crimes and events that have lasting historical value. This one does not. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:53, 20 February 2013 (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.