Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bridegroom


 * 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 - with the understanding that many people voting on this AfD are not familiar with Wikipedia policy, please note that AfD discussions are not a matter of counting votes, but rather of gaining rough consensus based on the weight and appropriateness of policy as it pertains to the article.

As has been noted below, the subject of this article currently fails our standards of notability. Firstly, our general notability guidelines. These state that the subject of the article must have been the subject (in a non-trivial manner) of numerous, independent, secondary sources. The sources currently available on the article are PR pieces from the gentlemen's agency and small obituary notices.

The second objection to the article's inclusion on Wikipedia was that the subject fails our notability guidelines for entertainers. Specifically, this refers to the need for the subject to have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This is simply not the case here.

I offer this long closing in the hope that those who are new to Wikipedia will understand the rational behind both the deletion votes and this outcome. However, should anyone have any questions, please do feel free to ask me on my talk page. Should anyone wish to have the article moved to their userspace, they need only ask. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Bridegroom

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

May fail WP:ENT. Article was created by, who I believe was the now-deceased subject's partner. This video is of relevance to the subjects. See also, Articles for deletion/Shane Bitney Crone.  Pyrrhus  16 12:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC) As an attorney, I can state without hesitation, that this needs to remain intact. His life is not a secret, and the embarrassment of the immediate family does not constitute deletion. Gay and Lesbian persons will soon share equal rights with us all. 20 years ago we many not have believed a black president was a possibility, but our current [black] president is in support of gay marriage. There is no warrent under the stated guidelines that allows for deletion of this and, in fact, deletion would open the gates to discrimination lawsuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodge2011 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge. This is an important aspect of the same-sex marriage issue and lack of marital rights regarding funeral and hospital visitation rights. but Thomas Bridegroom himself is not notable (yet). --Joshuaism (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I viewed the video posted on youtube and immediately Googled Thomas Bridegroom. Since I am an unrelated person with no ties to either him, his partner, or his family I believe his story is compelling enough and spreading rapidly enough to justify maintaining this page.---  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillowLily (talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please make an argument founded in Deletion policy. Wikipedia is not based upon subjective ideas of inclusion/exclusion.  What you believe to be compelling is irrelevant.  Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why anyone would consider this article for deletion. Shane Bitney Crone wants to leave a mark for an amazing man, a man he loved with everything he had. A man who was taken way too soon and a man he was never able to properly say goodbye to. This article has every right to stay and should stay. Stay strong Shane! You are an AMAZING man and you deserve all the happiness in the world. I also hear Ellen has heard of your story, I hope this goes viral and that people really see what needs to be done in this country regarding same-sex marriage issue and to protect people like you. <3 comment added by cmcgalrd —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Please make an argument founded in Deletion policy. Your idea of articles having "rights" is nonsense.  Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial, nor a soapbox.  Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree this page should not be deleted. - B in Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.251.130 (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please make an argument founded in Deletion policy that explains why. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * UncleG, please make an argument founded in Deletion policy that explains why you want this page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.193.131 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the sort of response one gets in a schoolyard, and daft considering that I've said nothing at all on the matter either way. Try not being silly, 69.71.193.131, and making a proper, policy-compliant, argument for what you think should happen.  Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are also sidestepping a legitimate request for the reason of your intention for this article's deletion. I again request: Uncle G, please make an argument founded in Deletion policy. If you cannot, do not bother to reply. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.6.33 (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have completely missed the point. You are asking Uncle G to justify his intention for deleting the article when he has expressed no such opinion.  All he has done is point out to participants in this discussion is that arguments need to be based on policy. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I also came across this page after seeing the YouTube video, and googling Mr. Bridegroom's name. The relevant video has a very high number of views and shares, and this trend will likely continue as the current debate about rights to same-sex couples continues, especially in light of N. Carolina's recently passed amendment. To me, this is a 'viral video' which qualifies for recognition in Wikipedia. I just checked, and the Nyan Cat has a undisputed page. Although I understand the argument that this story in itself is not entirely unique, the video made by his partner has reached a level of recognition justifying the Wikipedia entry. (At least to the extent a GIF cat made out of a pop-tart warrants.)Chasina R, Portland, OR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.192.183 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. Regardless of who initially created the article, the person has notability far outside of their profession as an "Entertainer" (WP:ENT). I do not find any sufficient arguments for deletion listed in Deletion policy. Scott Teresi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Mr. Bridegroom's work, and public interest after his death are enough to meet the notability guideline of the Deletion Policy. If family members of his are suggesting that this Wiki be deleted, they should be advised to instead supply additional content to this Wiki entry.  ~ S. A. Talbert  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan47305 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - but hold on First of all I'd like to say Keep. However, the rules of WP are that more than one independent verifiable source which provides significant coverage of the subject is required to satisfy notability so I have to say Delete. My view is that he probably is notable - but this article doesn't (yet) prove it. So - get to your local library and find some sources. To put it bluntly - if he's dead - all you need are two newspaper obituaries and your problems are solved. Cite these in the talk page, or if you don't know how to - provide the details (if it's a newspaper and not on the internet) and/or links and ask an editor to help you cite them properly on the article. With two such sources, notability should be satisfied and the delete arguments should dissipate. First4Uppingham (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I think this is history for the LGBT community. Also Thomas Bridegroom seemed to be a notable person, hosted a TV show on MTV for example. Keverw (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The video circulating about his death has over a million views on Youtube, it's major news now whether or not it would have been significant on its own merits. Binerman (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

KEEP. The YouTube video is powerful. People are going to keep googling him and coming to Wikipedia to find out more information. 184.32.6.164 (talk) audrhi —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC).
 * merge as the sensible compromise solution, but I am not sure in which direction.  DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * merge, as per Joshuaism's observations. It is not appropriate for a wikipedia page to be created by someone personally involved, and it appears that both members of this couple created each other's pages - the irony being that at the time they probably thought no-one would ever pick up this fact. The subject-matter of the video is highly relevant, though, for articles on the topic of recognition of same-sex couples and a reference to the video would be appropriate there (and searches for Bridegroom's name would pick this up).Orfeocookie (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Questions. Let me attempt to nutshell the subject: Bridegroom's main claim to fame is as the subject of a short video made by his bereaved boyfriend, who uploaded it to Youtube, where many people have watched it. Have I got that wrong? If I haven't, why even merge, anywhere? Certainly I don't immediately see signs of other notability. (Looking at the external links, I see "Model and TV Host Tom Bridegroom Tells Guys to Try SensiClear Acne Treatment" and worse.) I do understand that the video is said to be significant. Is the claim of significance (a) on the strength of what it says, (b) for its impact (as measured by press coverage etc), or (c) for its great number of views? If (a), this is not encyclopedic. (Nothing ideological about this: its opposite, a homophobic rant, would in itself be equally unencyclopedic.) If (b) (as is claimed in the article on Crone), where is this coverage? If (c), I do note that it has been viewed 1.8 million times, which does seem impressive until I consider how very many people there are who watch a great number of youtubes. "Guy Catches Laptop with His Butt", for example, has got 4.2 million views, and the short list of related videos that Youtube served me for it (and the list it gives you may differ) included eight that had had over 2 million views. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Thomas Bridegroom was not notable enough and most of the information is not verified, it is a rehashing of the video, so opinions, not established facts. Emotion should not drive what is a Wiki worthy topic. Scottca075 Scottca075 (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP: The truth is that the Thomas Bridegroom U-tube video has entered and already become an important part of the gay marriage deabte on both sides of the Atlantic and is currently being shared extensively on Facebook - which very much can be verified (and justifies it being considered notable). I detect, sadly, a strong whiff of subjective prejudice and bigotry, masquerading under a rather "holier than thou" interpretration of Wiki's clear guidlines, in some of the comments above. Patricklt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricklt (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The truth is that the Thomas Bridegroom U-tube video has entered and already become an important part of the gay marriage [debate] on both sides of the Atlantic: Then please augment and improve the article so that it has reliable evidence of this truth. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have briefly reviewed the guidelines that instruct why and how WikiPedia articles are to be deleted; in short, I can find no reasonable explanation why this article merits consideration for deletion. In a retort above, user Uncle G suggests that the burden of proof be upon those who think that the article should be kept. It seems straightforward that the burden of proof to explain why an article should be deleted should be bourne by those who want the article removed. If this is not official policy, I think WikiMedia would do well to make it such. User Uncle G's requests to refer to specific policies officious. The article should stand for the reasons set forth by other users above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumburg (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Deletion policy says: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following [...] Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed[;] Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) [...]. It seems to me that (i) a large percentage of the article (as yet) lacks verification by reliable sources, and (ii) notability ("WP:BIO") is lacking. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: His death by itself is not notable enough to qualify for a page; However, the You-Tube video that goes along with his life is. More information should be added to this page. -- kraamerXmich (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2012
 * Please go ahead and add (reliably sourced) information to the article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: What an interesting bunch of users there are in this AfD, including (but perhaps not limited to): Cmcgalrd (the one edit above, only); WillowLily (ditto); Patricklt (ditto); Alan47305 (ditto); Hodge2011 (the two edits above, only); Keverw (first edit in nine months, and fifth ever); First4Uppingham (indefinitely blocked by Uncle G: Disruption spree at AFD from multiple accounts); Kraamerxmich (started editing on 14 May, every edit has been about Bridegroom). -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I see no coverage in independent reliable sources about the subject that establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, or else Merge the individual user pages into a single article discussing the YouTube video and the people (Tom & Shane). I saw the video, then googled Tom Bridegroom and found the WikiPedia entry.  There is journalistic / archival value in being able to learn more about the story, particularly given the large number of people who are watching the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHGrove3 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep. Not only has the YouTube video about him gone viral, but a number of news services have done stories about it, including CNN ("Gay Man's Poignant Video Goes Viral", CNN Newsroom, May 15th, 2012). MishaPan (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, or possibly merge. As for the argument that "attempts to find reliable sources to verify [the article] have failed," (from WP:DEL) I believe you are only looking at one (admittedly important) section of the article. His filmography, while brief, is certainly verifiable by reliable sources (IMDb, MTV). His obituary is also "reliable." I believe that, with a little effort and research, reliable sources could be found to verify the sections in question (i.e. his background, orientation, relationship, and the events occuring between his death and funeral). Moreover, CNN has already had wind of this story, so I wouldn't be surprised if more sources popped up. I do, however, think that the article also needs rewritten--it sounds more like an ad than an objective article ("the prestigious Culver Military Academy", and the entire Personal life section). However, with regard to deletion, the most important question I see is whether he has "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." [emphasis mine] (from WP:BIO) To me, it seems that he plays a significant role in only one television show, and not one of major interest. If this article were solely about Thomas Bridegroom's career as an actor, I would say he should only be mentioned in an article about The_X_Effect. However, I could argue that he plays a significant role in an "other production"--the YouTube video. I think he may deserve an article because he has two publicized roles (YouTube video and X Effect) that are very unrelated, and that drawing that link may be the main use for this article. My only qualm about this is that this is a very recent rise to "fame" (if it can be called that), and it's difficult to predict the long-term value of this article. Looking at Google Insights, I see that there was only a short spike in interest, but I also see that there still a bit of interest. I believe that this article has encylopaedic value, even if only to a few thousand people who want to research after watching the YouTube video. However, if all media coverage stops and interest in his story dies out, I would be more comfortable seeing this information merged into pages about "It Could Happen to You" and The_X_Effect. I also must say that the "Personal life" section sounds more like a transcription of the YouTube video than an informative section, and to deserve my "Keep," I think it needs revamped. (Sorry for the long comment!) Emolution (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, Thomas Bridegroom hosted The X Effect on MTV, a show that has aired all over the world and still airs today. That is notable on it's own. Aside from hosting an international TV on a major network he has appeared in numerous national commercial and print campaigns. All you have to do is GOOGLE Tom Bridegroom. To say that Tom is not Notable and that Shane Bitney Crone's video "It Could Happen To You" isn't widespread enough that is incorrect. I have been following this story and following Tom and Shane and Shane has done interviews with the TV shows The Insider on CBS, E News on E!, and The Newsroom on CNN. RadarOnline featured the story as well as The Huffington Post, La repubblica (Italy's top newspaper). The video has over 2.3 million views and although the momentum has slowed down slightly it would be absolutely shameful to delete Shane Bitney Crone and Thomas Bridegroom's Wikipedia pages (Whether they created them or not is irrelevant) because their story has now been covered all over the world and it will forever be a part of the gay rights movement. Just google Tom or Shane's name and there are HUNDREDS of media outlets that have covered this story/video. Shane even said in an interview he was been approached by numerous production companies to turn this into a movie. If these Wikipedia pages are deleted it will turn into a news story itself that ONCE AGAIN Tom Bridegroom's life is trying to be erased and people are trying to erase the fact that their relationship ever existed. User: LivingSpaces 08:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingspaces (talk • contribs)
 * Keep: I don't see sufficient need to delete based on section one of the delete guidelines that instruct why and how WikiPedia articles are to be deleted. The issues cited can be addressed individually. Deletion is not justified under section one. Regarding "Failing all criteria", I think he met the minimum notability based on MTV alone. SkipR 21:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryper (talk • contribs)
 * 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.