Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Dylan Buckner


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. While Owenx makes (in my opinion) a reasonable argument here, it seems consensus disagrees with the assessment of notability derived from those sources presented, and therefore the consensus is to delete. Daniel (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Suicide of Dylan Buckner

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Whilst tragic, article doesn't meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG CoconutOctopus   talk  16:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet GNG. Banks Irk (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG castorbailey (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: the fact that this event is still receiving significant coverage a year and a half after it happened tells me it meets WP:LASTING. I don't see how WP:NOTMEMORIAL is relevant here, considering the broad, persistent media coverage that establishes notability. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A half page article about a scholarship named after the person isn't extensive, nor terribly notable. It's rather common to name a scholarship after someone passes away. Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * True, it is indeed common to name scholarships that way. It isn't as common for such scholarships to receive national media coverage, and when they do, we generally consider them notable enough for an article here. Owen&times; &#9742;  21:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A handful of articles and stories in the local Chicago press and local news about a scholarship given to an area HS student essentially repeating a press release is not "national media coverage". This is simply not notable. Banks Irk (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * PBS is a national network. And while Fox News isn't high on our RS ranks, it is a major national news network. Owen&times; &#9742;  01:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * PBS is a toolkit for educators. And Fox news is a useless source in my books, as they lie about what they promote on air. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, we don't have to rely on Fox News' shoddy accuracy here, as the story is covered by local networks. I only brought it up in response to 's claim that coverage was only local. Coverage is national, and reliable local sources can be used to verify the content, as well as assert notability. Owen&times; &#9742;  15:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My point was quite specific: There is not "nationwide media coverage" of the scholarship, which is what you claimed. It is purely local and not notable. Fox can be reliable predicted to run a forgotten non-notable story a year later about "a kid killed himself over Dems' COVID policies". The PBS piece is an interview with one of the kid's teammates, only tangentially related, not about the scholarship at all. Banks Irk (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Initial burst of coverage in 2021 when it happened, then nothing. The student was not notable before dying, nothing much more after. Tragic but nothing for Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2023 (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.