Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trayvon Martin


 * 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   no consensus. I don't think there is consensus here about what to do with the article. While most similar cases would be deleted or merged under BLP1E, there are reasonable arguments that this case is high-profile enough to merit an exception to the rule. Both sides of the discussion make reasonable arguments here, and I feel that no consensus has been reached. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Probably a WP:ONEEVENT. There seems to already be consensus that Martin himself is not notable - see this.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 23:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 23:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 23:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Are you kidding? &mdash; goethean 00:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not kidding. This is a recently created spinoff of Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Since consensus was previous that Martin did not merit a standalone article, it seems only fair to test it again.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep . Clearly notable, a wealth of reliable sources document his life. No valid reason given for deletion. &mdash; goethean 00:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding is not a reason to keep. I don't think that Martin is notable for an article himself, but I already know which way this AfD will go. Wikipedia needs to really look at its US bias in AfDs etc. if it wants to be taken seriously in the rest of the world.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment and keep This proposed article is not about the shooting, it is about the person known as Trayvon Martin, a subject that became notable in February 2012. While the shooting is what brought this subject to our attention, this proposed article doesn't explore the night of February 26 and the incident in depth like it's sister article. This article tells the story of a subject's life before that night and how his death inspired complete strangers to take up a cause of someone they never met. This article also explains his digital footprint he left behind on his social media accounts and how the media reported on them and which lawyers tried to use against him in a court of law, which is becoming quite common and questionable. This subject has also been specifically mentioned by name by President Obama, once in a press conference and again in a historic speech (as a result of this subject); see Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. This subject has also received international attention and has other Wikipedia articles in other languages about him and this incident; see Here and Here and Here. The death of this subject received more media coverage in 2012 than the presidential election, happening in the same timeframe. The subject is also listed as Notable people sharing the surname "Martin" in a Wikipedia article which was added in this diff and is in the WP:CATEGORY of media related controversies in the United States. The death of the subject inspired a online petition that received over 2.2million signatures – at that time (and to this date afaik), the largest number of signatures for any campaign in Change.org's history. There is still significant interest in the subject, as of September 16, 2013, Trayvon Martin (at redirect of SoTM) had been viewed over 3300 times. In addition to the six Wikipedia articles referenced above, the subject is also referenced on Angela Corey's WP article, by far having the biggest section on her page and Martin has a section on Sanford, Florida,s page as well. From the original article, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, there have also been these articles created as a result of the subjects death: Timeline of the shooting of Trayvon Martin - State of Florida v. George Zimmerman - Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago - George Zimmerman-which was just recently created. It stands to follow we should have an article on the deceased subject, instead of just references to the subject in numerous other Wikipedia articles. This article is meant to provide a historical biography of the entirety of the subject's life and inform the reader who this notable subject was prior to February 26, 2012. Additionally, it's in compliance with WP:BLP - WP:RS - WP:V - WP:NPOV - WP:NOTE - WP:TITLE -WP:IUP. Thank you for taking the time to read it.-- Isaidnoway  (talk)  00:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:GNG - Davey 2010  Talk  01:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm going to have say that I'd delete this article. His notability is only for the shooting. His prior life that has nothing to do with the shooting has no relevance in this encyclopedia. WP:MEMORIAL comes to mind, even though it doesn't directly cover this matter. Nevertheless, the details having to do with the shooting and aftermath should be kept at the shooting pages. If those phrases were removed, it would only cover personal details that don't really belong here. For that reason, I have to vote delete. This really doesn't seem appropriate.
 * To people saying "WTF", please consider our notability guidelines, rather than following gut reactions. RGloucester  — 📬 02:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the shooting. His death was tragic, but that doesn't mean that we should put up a memorial that lists his hobbies and favorite bands. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Martin is notable for one event. Everything about him that is important is due to how it relates to that event, and creating an article is forking.   Isaidnoway says that strangers took up his case and that is important, but it is part of the case.  Similarly the details of his life are only relevant insofar as they relate to the case, particularly the degree of responsibility, if any, for the confrontation with Zimmerman.  Sacco and Vanzetti was a far more famous case, and they attracted worldwide support, yet we have only one article.  TFD (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There is information that doesn't fit well anywhere else. Editors need a place to expand using the many available sources. If in a couple years after this case is old history and everyone has forgotten, an AfD will be more clear if this is truly notable enough for a standalone article. For now I think if editors want to work on it they should be allowed the room, and not micromanage too tightly with 1E. — Green Cardamom (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is his early life relevant to the encyclopedia? Why does it matter if he played football or not? These things do not belong, and look very similar to a WP:MEMORIAL. RGloucester  — 📬 15:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * His early life is relevant because that's what a biographical entry about a subject does, it provides the reader with a complete overview of a person's life. And since the bio is about a deceased 17-year-old, naturally the info about a 17-year-old is limited in scope and will reflect only his early childhood and teenage years. A child and a teenager's life is limited to a very select criteria of details like; high school, football, texting, tweeting, cars, girls. There was widespread RS reporting on biographical details about this subject's early life and teenage years and that is reflected in the article. This article isn't about what made him notable, but rather who this notable figure was.— Isaidnoway (talk)  19:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that he doesn't warrant a biographical entry. While alive, he was never notable. His only notability derives from his death, and from the implications of it. Just because newspapers and tabloids spew endless details and speculation about his personal life does not mean that that information is encyclopedic. In other words, the figure himself is not notable. The event of his death is. All details about his life necessary for the shooting article should stay at Shooting of Trayvon Martin. The rest is tosh that is not needed, and is merely a WP:MEMORIAL. RGloucester  — 📬 21:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the point is Martin became notable, as per WP:GNG, when significant coverage of biographical details about him started to become sourced. Notability doesn't have to occur when a subject is alive.— Isaidnoway (talk)  17:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read the following bit? "Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not". Wikipedia is not a memorial, neither is it a newspaper, nor a repository of numerous trivialities. RGloucester  — 📬 18:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, sure did. I know how Wikipedia works. I expected the same old arguments. I knew when I pressed that 'save page' button, it was going to be WP:CONSENSUS that determined the outcome of this article. I read in an essay once on WP that discussions where the outcome relies on a consensus, it's really not about the quality of your argument, but rather the quantity of editors who share the same opinion. That is so true. Whatever the turnout, I'll be content. Cheers, nice talking to you.— Isaidnoway (talk)  07:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no need for flippancy, and what've you've said is the opposite of what's true. The quality of the argument takes precedence. This is not a vote. The problem is that your argument relies on an appeal to sentiment with regard to a dead child. Not to say that one shouldn't feel horrid about what happened, but that that feeling is not what determines what becomes notable or gets a Wikipedia article. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not advocated for any editor to base a decision, or present an argument based on their emotions. The dead child is notable and meets all criteria for a standalone article. "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close [the discussion] by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it." The way I see this debate - is that some think this figure has gained notability and qualifies under the criteria for a standalone article, while others debate it is not encyclopedic content, is trivial and a memorial. The closer of this discussion will base their decision on the majority view of editor's who shared the same viewpoint of those who have participated in the discussion. I am perfectly content with that, I assume good faith that the predominant view is a reasonable one.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. This is not a WP:POLL the closer should be taking into account arguments presented, not just the number of !voters. !votes like "Are you kidding?", "WTF are you joking ... or just trolling?!.... Seriously wtf?" and "this is a joke right? or?." (see article history) are not conclusive to gaining a consensus or agreement, and do not allow a proper discussion.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I always assume good faith, but such votes really rub me the wrong way. Especially since most of those who had such votes later changed them to sound less dismissive. Just doesn't sit well with me. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - forfills all criterias of WP:GNG pretty much,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Magnitude and cultural impact of this case and the victim of it pushes this from NOTNEWS to enyclopedic status. I suppose that an argument can be validly made that this forks Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Carrite (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether its called Shooting of Trayvon Martin or not there should only be one article -- this is what readers would expect and should expect since he is notable for his death.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Shooting of Trayvon Martin as a WP:1E-notable death. and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. He is notable for having been shot to death by the neighborhood watch that ignored police instructions. It is the circumstances of his death that are significant, including wearing a hoodie, which would be covered in the shooting article. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment George Zimmerman has also been created. It similarly is a 1E-notable person article. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Zimmerman was in the news again recently for an unrelated incident, so that article seems to be justified.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 11:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Martin became notable, as per WP:GNG, when significant coverage of biographical details about him started to become sourced. The sourcing for bio details about Martin, far outweigh sourcing for Zimmerman's bio details.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  17:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Shooting of Trayvon Martin. This person's death, however unfortunate, is the only reason we are having this discussion. VQuakr (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This seems to be the exception listed in WP:ONEEVENT regarding the role of the person and the event, and the subject easily passes WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Obviously Martin does not merit a biography beyond the one event and as a memorial. Also, this creates an attractive WP:ATTACK nuisance. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and re-direct, as per Users:R.Gloucester, Edgarde, and others. - Boneyard90 (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (redirect afterwords) - Trayvon is not notable just by virtue of being shot. This falls under WP:ONEEVENT - his role is not significant in the event, he is the victim of the shooting, not the perpetrator. Without him, the shooting still might have taken place. Without the perpetrator, it never would've happened. The history of this article should be deleted, and then a redirect created with a clean history. ~ Charmlet -talk- 23:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BLP1E, a part of the WP:BLP policy, trumps GNG. Its whole purpose is to discourage (even prohibit, if you take it that far) articles on subjects who are GNG or otherwise notable only for one event. ~ Charmlet -talk- 23:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But Martins notability has moved beyond the 1E. Trayvon Martin - the person - has become a cultural icon for some in the African-American community and others as well. They are using his name, his image, to highlight various issues of concern to the black community. President Obama compared himself to Martin to invoke an image of what life is like in this country for an African-American and to point out inequalities in the justice system for young black men in this country. His image is being featured on the cover of Ebony's September 2013 issue and the Editor-in-Chief of Ebony said: "We simply cannot allow the conversations on this issue to come to a standstill. As the leading source for an authoritative perspective on the African-American community, at Ebony we are committed to serving as a hub for Black America to explore solutions, and to giving readers the information and tools they need to help ensure a bright future for all of our children." The October 2013 issue of JET magazine will feature Martin as well. Out of the 6 articles on WP under the Martin/Zimmerman umbrella, this article is #3 in page views after only 4 days of being a standalone, receiving more views than the trial of Zimmerman.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Would Martin have ever been covered outside of this 1 event? The answer is no. ~ Charmlet -talk- 18:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement that Martin has become a "cultural icon" is an opinion, and not a fact. The facts we have are as follows:


 * 1) Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman.
 * 2) The death of Martin has been variously politicized and discussed, with regard to gun laws, race relations, and so on.
 * 3) Zimmerman's acquittal raised questions about the workings of the criminal justice system.
 * All of these directly pertain to the shooting and to Martin's death. Had he not been shot, he would not've been notable. Therefore, what is notable is the shooting and its aftermath. Not Martin himself, beyond certain factors pertaining to the shooting. This clearly falls under 1E. All speculation about his personality and life prior to the shooting is not notable, beyond how it pertains to the case. Sure, newspapers and others have spoken endlessly about such details. But they are not encyclopedic, merely sensational and opinion-based. Our job is to report the facts of the situation with regard to the shooting and aftermath. We should mention how Martin's case has been seized upon by various groups, however we do not need to fall into the trap of seizing upon it ourselves, which is clearly not something an encyclopedia should do if intends to maintain a neutral, objective point of view. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We need to get past discussing the shooting and the trial, it's over. The facts that are relevant to this discussion about a standalone article are: Has Martin's notability diminshed any - No. Is Martin receiving media coverage outside this 1E - yes. Is it RS - yes. Is it V - yes. Is it NPOV - yes. And your statement that Martin's case has been "seized upon" by various groups, is not only your opinion, but rather callous to those people who are behind a serious and genuine effort to bring about real change in this country. I don't see any trapdoors. An encyclopedia is also a documentation of history and offers a historical perspective, and Martin has become a notable person of interest in history, and that is a fact.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  06:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Martin is known solely for being shot. Most of the rest of his life are trivia as far as wikipedia is concerned. Some aspects of his life e.g. possible drug use and his wearing a hoodie, relate to the shooting article and trial of Zimmerman article. If he has become a symbol, it is because of him being shot, and Zimmerman acquitted, and this also belongs in the other two articles. Martin himself does not have any other notability outside of that.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Serious and genuine effort to bring about real change in this country": what a phrase! It proves you are pushing a POV rather than trying to improve the encyclopedia, and what's more, it shows a clear US-bias, which is a concern that another editor has voiced. Here, we are not trying to change anything. Merely report on the facts and issues. RGloucester  — ☎ 12:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because I recognize that sourcing has reported on those people who made those statements, you consider that pov pushing? Wow! I call it being a realist and as a WP editor being able to recognize that there is widespread sourcing reporting on this subject and those people. You think an encyclopedia should just shun and censor sourcing that reports on individuals, groups and organizations around the world that initiate dialogue in an effort to change the world they live in. Or is it just the sourcing for this subject and those individuals, groups and organizations who have associated themsleves with Martin here in the United States you wish to shun and censor? Wikipedia has a strong history of including articles about individuals, groups and organizations who have taken up causes here in the states and elsewhere in the world that are sometimes controversial and with a particular pov, and the articles have been steadfast in maintaining a NPOV. See Occupy Wall Street and GLAAD and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and Ku Klux Klan and White supremacy and Mohamed Bouazizi and Polly Klaas Foundation. Maybe those articles should be considered for deletion as well because of the pov they represent. No one is advocating that WP push a pov to change anything, but rather WP recognize that sources are reporting on this notable person of interest and the individuals, groups and organizations that have chosen to associate themselves with Martin, and merely report those facts and issues in a NPOV.— Isaidnoway (talk)  17:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll have you note that Martin never took-up any causes. He merely died. Obviously the situation would be different if he himself was a notable activist. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - like many other dead people, he became notable only in death. Bearian (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent point. BLP only applies to "Living" people and thus WP:BLP1E does not apply here. Many people become notable in death. — Green Cardamom (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Our concern is not that he became notable only in death, but that his notability arises only from one event. WP:ONEEVENT applies to both dead and living people, and even though people have cited BLP1E, the same notion exists in the general notability criteria for all people, as you will see at the page that I've linked in this sentence. If he had done anything notable that we did not know about until after he died, then that would be a different circumstance. The fact remains that his only notable action was to die, which is something he himself did not even have control over. This clearly falls under the guideline that I've linked above. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right, Martin was not an activist. Here's some other people, like Martin, who were not activists and whose notability arose out of a singular event and some of these people's only notable action was to die: See: Isaac Woodard and Scottsboro Boys and Emmett Till and Ossian Sweet and Booker T. Spicely and Irene Morgan and Jacob Wetterling and Michael Dunahee. And there are many many others too numerous to mention that also fall under WP:ONEEVENT that have articles on WP. So if all these people fall under 1E and still have an article, why is that? We must look beyond the 1E to determine if the subject has sustained notability and if there is sourcing about the subject outside the 1E. Martin has that notability and the sourcing which would nullify the 1E clause.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  17:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for a keep or delete !vote. I have just had a quick glance at those articles, and there does not seem to be an equivalent article on the actual crime, it is all rolled into one article. With Trayvon Martin we already have the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, as well as an article on the court case. The Shooting article is equivalent to those you mention.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Those "other" articles are not "crap" they represent some of the most important civil rights issues in America and it's really potentially offensive to label them "crap". Suggest changing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I will also correct that one of those cases has a seperate article on a supreme court case.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is what I suggest to you folk. There is only one article for Emmett Till, not two, showing the difference. Either expand the article on the shooting, or delete the article on the shooting and only have an article on Martin, incorporating the shooting. That would be more logical. Nevertheless, I hold to my opinion on this matter. I agree with the mention of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No one has demonstrated, first and foremost, why someone's act of dying makes it encyclopedic for us to cover parts of that person's life that have nothing to do with what made him notable. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While it is true that Till's article incorporates both the murder and bio details about his life, it certainly doesn't require that all articles on WP have to follow that format. The sourcing has demonstrated that Martin's notability has not diminished and that he has moved beyond the 1E. A biographical entry about a notable person of interest would naturally include details about that person's life. And additionally, both of Till's parents, whose notability derived from the murder of their son, both have articles on WP which include details of their early lives which have nothing to do with how they acquired their notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also states: While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. And in the section "Creation of articles", it states: When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia.— Isaidnoway (talk)  18:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But you haven't explained how Martin's notability has moved beyond 1E. Any reporting that does exist only does so because of the shooting. Only "one event" occurred to Martin. Even if, under some bizarre circumstance, I was concede to an article on Martin, most of the present content would be have be removed as trivial and un-needed. It reads like a memorial, which is something Wikipedia is not. It glorifies a normal child going about his life, and tries to bring out sympathy in the reader. This is not neutral, and unacceptable.
 * And I agree, that doesn't require all articles to have that format. It is merely an example. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability here goes beyond the 1E, he has become a social symbol across a broad swatch of society after his death, he is more than just another crime victim, his demonstrable impact on society is enough to merit a separate article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He had no demonstrable impact on society. His death may have done, and as such it is described in the shooting article. I use the word "may" there because it is too close to his death to really know whether this incident has had demonstrable impact on society. You may want to see WP:RECENCY. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment @User:Isaidnoway - WP:ONEEVENT is summarized as such "Would the subject have received any coverage had it not been for this one event?" If the answer is yes (as is the case with some notable persons), then the 1E does not apply. If the answer is no, then 1E applies and the person is not notable. Had it not been for the shooting he would not have any coverage at all. Furthermore, since his part in the incident was unwilling (one must assume), that further influences the fact that his role in the event was not significant and major enough to overcome 1E. ~ Charmlet -talk- 23:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hear him, hear him! RGloucester  — ☎ 23:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge with Shooting of Trayvon Martin per WP:1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no practical way to merge the content as it is too long so much information would be lost, if there was a merge. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, merge what can be merged and let the rest get deleted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If I may rephrase for him - merge what is appropriate. 90% of the information in the huge article is not needed. ~ Charmlet -talk- 01:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you; that's exactly what I was trying to say. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why anyone would assume his part in the incident was unwilling when it has already been well documented by sourcing that he was a willing and significant participant in the encounter, and at the very least, partially responsible for his own death. Describing Martin's role in this incident as not significant, seems like a strategy of focused distraction to construct the event as an encounter between two individuals who were unrelated in any way and diminish Martin's role in the encounter as having little or no significance. Martin's participation in the event was equal (if not greater) to that of his counterpart and it is this significant participation by Martin which made him stand for something beyond himself.


 * WP:ONEEVENT also states: When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.— Isaidnoway (talk)  17:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * His role was not a large one. He was walking home or whatever, and was approached and confronted by another. This confrontation resulted in his death. He did not initiate the action against him, that was Zimmerman's prerogative. He did not choose to die. He did not even choose conflict. The individuals were unrelated, and had no prior contact.
 * Furthermore, you are projecting onto Martin. Martin himself stood for nothing, that we know of. The projections that other place on him do not warrant an article beside the one on the shooting, where that can be dealt with. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that his role was not a large one is contradicted by RS. Martin is the one who initially confronted Zimmerman when he was still sitting in his truck, which is documented in his call to the police and in statements to police. And your claims that he "did not initiate the action" and "did not even choose conflict" sound like they were taken directly from the talking points of Martin supporters. The sourcing and evidence produced at Zimmerman's trial indicated that Martin did initiate the action by punching Zimmerman in the face first and indeed chose conflict over returning to the house where he was staying. By chance, have you seen the photo of Zimmerman with a bloody and swollen nose? All these details and countless others outlining the significance of Martin's role in the incident are well sourced and documented. Thank you for clarifying that your knowledge of this incident is limited, now I understand your position.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  19:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be refusing to acknowledge, much less answer, my question that is important to the closure of this AfD - Would Trayvon Martin be covered was it not for this event? The answer is no. You seem to be inputting your personal opinions about Trayvon into this AfD, which is something that you should try to stop. If you have proof other than "well I think he had a significant role because it makes me feel all tingly and bad inside that he got shot and now I think he's an icon" please present it, and I'll be happy to change my mind. I'm afraid that I must assume at this time you cannot come up with any evidence for a significant role. ~ Charmlet -talk- 21:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My response to your known answer question - Obviously, Martin wouldn't have been covered if it hadn't been for this event. Emmett Till and his parents wouldn't have articles on WP if it hadn't been because of one event. John Hinckley, Jr. wouldn't have an article on WP if it hadn't been for one event. There are countless other's as well that have articles on WP because of one event, and not a single one would have been covered if it hadn't been for the event they were involved in. Amid all the widespread reliably sourced coverage about this incident and the significance of Martin's role in it, I find it incredulous you need to see sourcing. But here are some RS with collected news and commentary you may wish to peruse to get some background information on Martin's role in this incident. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal and USA Today and Orlando Sentinel and ABC News and TIME Magazine and here are President Obama's remarks about this teenager (with a questionable and controversial background) that he compared himself to. Here are some highlights from his speech which would seem to debunk your theory of Martin's insignificant role in this incident: "This is a long-term project -- we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them...I do recognize that as President, I've got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front...And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men..." And yes, I chose to use the word "icon" based on the definition of the term; a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of something. In closing - FYI, I am not a family member or relative of Martin, not a friend and not an acquaintance of the family or this deceased teenager. His death did not make me feel tingly and bad inside either, as I recognize through the ample RS presented above that he chose to place himself in this situation which resulted in his demise, which seems rather significant as evidenced by the widespread reporting on this notable person of interest.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  19:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So, basically, because other people have slipped through and gotten articles that also violate 1E, we must now keep this one. Okay, I'm done here. You've disproven your whole argument for me. ~ Charmlet -talk- 21:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I was sort of on the fence about this one, but yes, I do think he passes GNG. I appreciate the BIO1E argument, since it's fair to say all of his notability stems from one event (which, unfortunately, happens to be his death). But he's also been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources for over a year and a half now. The main shooting article is far too large anyway, so this is legitimate as a spin-off; that also means merging is a poor choice. —BDD (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Coverage does not necessarily mean that that info is encyclopedic, which the GNG most patently states. How would you deal with the trivialities of this article? With the details on his "typical teenage life"? The way the article is framed now, it is not acceptable. It reads like a memorial, and is totally skewed towards a certain POV. If this article were to survive, I think the only possible option is to nuke it and start over. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I think the article should be kept, there may be something to your point regarding NPOV. I took a quick glance at the article, looking for a few things such as the woman's jewelry that Martin was caught with in his backpack along with a large screwdriver described as a burglary tool, and I didn't see it in the article. There may also be negative information about Martin's life that comes out if Martin's family sues Zimmerman for wrongful death and Zimmerman's lawyers present evidence for the trial. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bob. My keep vote should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the article precisely as it stands. There are some WP:UNDUE issues, especially with the negative coverage, but you could very easily winnow all that out and still be left with something that easily passes GNG. RGloucester, I don't know what you mean by saying GNG "patently states" ... a requirement that coverage be encyclopedic, in nature? Is that what you're saying? It's not what GNG says. —BDD (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I beg your dearest pardon for not making myself clearer. I've written above about this. There is a quite important part of the GNG that I shall quote:
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
 * As you may see, just because he has coverage in sources doesn't mean that it belongs in Wikipedia. There are valid reasons why not to include information found in other sources, such as newspapers, in an encyclopedia. That is because the two serve different purposes. I hope this clarifies what I meant. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely you're not suggesting newspaper coverage doesn't count towards GNG. Sure, if the sort of coverage included in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER or WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is involved, that's one thing. And respectable newspapers trafficking rumors is another. If the shooting were last week, I'd probably agree with you. But if we look at the same referencing and come to different conclusions regarding GNG, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. —BDD (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm referring to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, among other things. Certain trivialities that may be a good scoop for a newspaper, I would say, don't belong in an encyclopedia. For varied reasons, but especially WP:RECENCY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I would suggest that most coverage about Mr Martin, such as the bits on him "saving his father's life" and going to an aviation camp, fall into this category. All we need to know, and all that matters from historical perspective, is that he was shot, and that his shooting has wide ranging implications, which we must detail. Other than that, only spartan biographical details are needed, and can easily fit into the shooting article. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ONEEVENT, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."
 * Also I think that many readers would like to know more about a person who is as widely known as Trayvon Martin.  —Bob K31416 (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Readers may want to know, but an encyclopedia is not the place for them to look for such details. You don't go to New York Times when looking for TMZ. As said above, his role was most patently not a large one. He was merely shot. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there is a Wikipedia article Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Wikipedia is the place for people to look for "such details" about Trayvon Martin, per the quote I gave from WP:ONEEVENT. I don't see the basis for your conclusion that his role as the person who was shot dead at the end of a violent physical conflict is not a large part of the event.   And as I responded to your comment below, perhaps it would help make your point about what is not encyclopedic if you could  find some written guidance in Wikipedia that you could share here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If readers want gossip on Martin, then go to US Weekly, the Daily Mail etc. So what if Martin was in a park the night before he was shot telling jokes, or swore occasionally and got caught once doing some graffiti, none of this is notable as far as wikipedia is concerned, it is just trivia. Everything notable about him can fit into the article about the shooting, the rest is just about an average un-notable person.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - What type of content do we want? That's another question we need to ask. This is an encyclopedia. Look at this sentence, taken from the article, for example "When Martin was 9 years old, he saved his father's life by pulling him out of a fire in their apartment and called 911". What relevance does this have whatsoever? What purpose does it have? How is it encyclopedic?. Quite frankly, it isn't. The present article is a lump of heavily skewed point-of-view trying to portray Martin in a certain way that aligns with the imagined "symbol" that Isaidnoway touts. No to mention that it serves no factual or academic purpose to put such details in an encyclopedia article. What is important is the shooting, and the aftermath and implications of that shooting. They are where all those involved derive their notability from, and also where the real historical consequences, if any, will come from. This is all that matters from encyclopedia's standpoint. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the example sentence you mentioned about Martin saving his father's life, I don't see any problem with it, except that maybe it should be prefaced with "according to...". It seems like a significant event in Martin's life. Perhaps it would help make your point better if you could find some written guidance in Wikipedia that you could share here that supports your points about what is not encyclopedic. —Bob K31416 (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My dear fellow, I have done. Please see all of the guidelines I've linked in the above conversations, whether it be WP:MEMORIAL, WP:NEWSPAPER, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, &c. &c. If you haven't read my varied comments above, please don't disdain my thoughts for lack of "written guidance". RGloucester  — ☎ 13:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you gave links without quotes from them, I'll try to give the quotes that you might be using. If instead you were using other quotes from those links, feel free to share them.
 * Re WP:MEMORIAL —   "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." This does not apply to this case since Trayvon Martin satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements per the section WP:ONEEVENT as I quoted previously, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."
 * Re WP:NEWSPAPER — "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:" And then the section lists four items with explanations: 1. Journalism; 2. News reports; 3. Who's who; 4. A diary.  If you think any of these items apply to this AfD case, please quote the item with its explanation and state why you think  it applies.
 * Re WP:INDISCRIMINATE — "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Wikipedia articles should not be:" And then the section lists three items with explanations: 1. Summary-only descriptions of works; 2. Lyrics databases; 3. Excessive listings of statistics. Again, if you think any of these items apply to this case, please quote the item with its explanation and state why you think it applies.  Thanks. —Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I shan't get into circular arguments. I've very clearly stated, to-the-point, the exact items in comments above. I suggest you read them rather than request that I repeat myself again. The one thing I shall repeat, however, is that I and many other editors have refuted your idea that Mr Martin satisfies the notability requirements, for various reasons. We cannot take your opinion, nor mine, as gospel. This is a contested point. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the discussion. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * After discussion with RGloucester, it looks like this was an ill-conceived AfD that has no basis in any policy or guideline. If anyone feels otherwise, feel free to quote here the part of the policy or guideline that applies and I will reconsider. If anyone feels they have already given such a quote in this discussion, feel free to give the diff or time stamp for your message and I will look at it and perhaps copy the quote here for discussion. Thanks. —Bob K31416 (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear fellow, can you not read? I've explained my interpretation of the various guidelines numerous times, since the start of the AfD. I submit that my interpretation is just that: an interpretation. As is yours. This does not give you the right, dear fellow, to be saying such pointed things, even if veiled behind rather plain language. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss personal differences that you think we might have, you're invited to my talk page. Maybe it's just a misunderstanding that can be cleared up. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Martin is not notable, but the circustamces of his death and the trial for his case are, article should be moved or deleted, it is blatantly a violation of WP:1EVENT and is clearly a US bias, there are thousand of notable deaths in other parts of the world which have president speechs and so on, this does not refactorates the fact that he was not notable beyond his death event. Eduemoni↑talk↓ </b> 20:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is quite an interesting point, and one which has been brought up before. While I'm not in favor of deleting content for the sake of balancing Wikipedia, one must think. If this fellow, this Mr Martin, was, let's say an openly effeminate man who was shot in Iraq on suspicion of being gay, would he ever receive his own article, besides perhaps a shooting article? Not at all. And it is unlikely, even if one were to create such an article, based on underground Arab media coverage, that many here would accept it as even slightly notable. I'm not saying it is even a remotely direct comparison, or that such a situation is even likely, but it is something to think about. One can't selectively apply standards. Again, merely food for thought. Not an argument, necessarily, for preserving or deleting this article. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So far Eduemoni and Martin451 have mentioned US bias as a reason that this article is in Wikipedia. I'd be interested in knowing which other editors feel that way. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read anyone else comment when I put my !vote here, but there is a huge US iconic status applied to his article, and he was probably a common boy, perhaps a violent one, but like I said before the only notable thing is his death circumstances, which are dubious, there is no clear consensus if there were racism, if Travyon was under drug influence and the public attention this fact brought, including the president speech related to him. In 2008 a brazilian young girl was killed by her own father, there was a lot of public outcry and every single Brazilian became aware of her death, the biggest attention to date, she received a lot of homage and a public speech by some political authorities, but is it worthy to have an article on her? She has just a girl, she could have been the person who could have changed the world, but she didn't, she was not an activist, should I start an article on her citing her background as a girl who used to suck upon a pacifier and would play with her barby dolls? This is completely different from Anne Frank, she became notable post mortem because not only her death circumstances, but also the circustamces of her life and also her diary. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is clearly a violation of the memorial rules. We don't need this much information about his childhood. "Martin enjoyed sports video games, and washed cars, babysat and cut grass to earn his own money."  Everything relevant about him is in the Shooting of Trayvon Martin already.  A lot of the article just seems to be repeating things from there.    D r e a m Focus  17:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Re "This is clearly a violation of the memorial rules." — If you are referring to WP:MEMORIAL, I don't see the violation. —Bob K31416 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd summarize it in brief with the following, which is a base interpretation of the guideline on my part. Mr Martin doesn't meet the notability requirements, if 1E is taken into account, and if one believes his role was a minor one. This article attempts to memorialize this non-notable subject in ways that read like an obituary. "He was interested in x". "He did x". He liked x". These are trivialities that are not important from historical perspective, even more so because the subject isn't notable, other than for his death. I would say that his death is notable, but his person isn't. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like the basis for our difference of opinion is the part of your remark, " ... if one believes his role was a minor one." Regarding Martin's role in the event that is the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, you think his role is minor and I think his role is major. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not his role was minor of major in the event, there is nothing of him notable outside the event. He did not survive to talk about it afterwards, or campaign, or even be arrested. His life before the event was not notable, and had little bearing on him being shot.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any basis in a policy or guideline for the relevance of your remarks regarding notability outside the event. Before continuing, if you could quote the part of a policy or guideline that you are using, that would be helpful. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per the numerous and well articulated reasons given by Isaidnoway. Juneau Mike (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability only goes as far as this one event. WP:ONEEVENT most definetly applies. JOJ  <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  20:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEEVENT — "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." —Bob K31416 (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As we've already established, dear fellow, the question of whether his role was a large one is subjective and up to interpretation. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in knowing which editors in addition to RGloucester have the opinion that Martin had a minor role in the event that is the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How does insulting Fulton, Corey, Crump et. al. further your point exactly? Are you suggesting we question Angela Corey's bona fides? <sup style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;"> Market St.⧏ <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;"> ⧐ Diamond Way   06:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that also according to the second paragraph of WP:ONEVENT, an individual's role in an event is considered large if there is a "large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." In the event that is the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, there is a large coverage of what Martin did that night that led up to him being shot, in addition to the obvious large coverage that he was the one who was shot. —Bob K31416 (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My dear, dear fellow…as has already been mentioned, if that coverage is not encyclopedic, than it violates the GNG's "presumed" caveat, rendering your point moot. I, and others, would say that most of that coverage is not significant from a historical perspective. This is a matter of interpretation. We are like the Supreme Court of the US here, we interpret laws and make rulings on them. I stated my opinion. You've stated yours.  RGloucester  — ☎ 13:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge anything useful to Shooting of Trayvon Martin. WP:BLP1E applies here, but there's no reason that the background section of Martin in that article shouldn't be well written and comprehensive.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC).
 * In order for WP:BLP1E to apply, the third condition there must be satisfied, "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented...". As the person being shot after a significant interaction with the shooter, I think that Trayvon Martin's role in the event that is the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, is substantial and well-documented. If you disagree, I would be interested in your thoughts. —Bob K31416 (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are reading the wrong policy. That is for living persons. Please see WP:1E, which is structured differently. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete, those that sincerely wish to disagree would be wiser to form a new consensus on notability wikipolicies. There are tens of thousands of gun victims every year and that is just in the United States.  There are hundreds of thousands of victims of violence just in the U.S.  Those editors that are favoring keeping this article aren't changing anything about Trayvon Martin, they are really changing everything about what Wikipedia is and will be, an encyclopedic catalog of articles on every plaintiff/victim in every court case both civil and criminal.  I have no personal objections to a wikipedia of that nature and content, I have several thousands of articles that I would appreciate seeing wikipedia add for crime victims but that is not current wikipolicy.  We all have an obligation & duty as editors to realize that our contributions are affecting the entire encyclopedia.  If the majority of us wish to add otherwise non-notable crime victim articles then the proper forum is on the relevant wikipolicies talk pages.  Wikipedia should not become a place where exceptions to otherwise consensus policies are debated away from that policies talk page. <sup style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;"> Market St.⧏ <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;"> ⧐ Diamond Way   06:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You use the phrase "crime victim" a couple of times in your comments and it's not clear whether you are talking about Martin or not. But just for the record, Martin was not a victim of a crime. His shooter was acquitted, therefore no crime was committed in his shooting death. Your proposal that it "would be wiser to form a new consensus on notability wikipolicies" seems to suggest that there is something wrong with this guideline (it's not a policy). Do you contend that this guideline should be changed to exclude notable topics of a specific nature, like; gun violence, victims of violence, civil/criminal trials of people accused of crimes, etc. Because I don't think there would be a consensus to change the guideline to exclude articles of a specific nature, regardless of what the topic is. For instance, if we flip that coin over, one could reasonably argue that we should change the guidelines to exclude articles about the perpetrators of violence. Why should we give any space in an encyclopedia to people like Bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh. What have they ever done in their lives that was notable besides causing death and destruction? Who gives a rats ass about these type of people? That argument, of course, would fall flat on it's face, because editor's recognize that even though these people are scum (imo), they achieved significant attention from reliable sources, acquired notability and merited an article on WP.
 * Out of 3.4 million articles on en.wikipedia, the shooting article ranks #3143 in traffic. In July 2013, during the trial of the shooter, the shooting article had over 3.8 million page views alone. In comparison, Wikipedia's article on Bradley (Chelsea) Manning who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the espionage act, by releasing the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked to the public, only received 297,450 page views. I personally feel that Manning is a much more notable figure than Trayvon Martin will ever be, but yet the readers of Wikipedia feel different. In 11 days since the Martin article was forked off from the shooting article, it has received over 3500 page views. According to Google, the Trayvon Martin shooting ranked #9 in search queries for 2012. and TIME Magazine compiled a list of people who mattered in 2012, and Trayvon Martin is on that list. Can I explain to you the phenomenon surrounding this 17 year old African-American from Florida who never did a notable thing in his life, besides dying. No, I can't, but to ignore that he has received significant attention in reliable sources and acquired notability, seems to go against Wikipedia guidelines. If your desire is to see less articles of this nature, then I would think the proper venue would be to change the laws in this country and around the world to ensure that topics like this never have a chance to see the light of day.— Isaidnoway  (talk)  18:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, people are searching for Trayvon Martin because of the shooting, correct? They would not be searching for him if there was no shooting, right? Your use of Bin Laden or McVeigh is a total nonsense. Both of them were involved in multiple events. Bin Laden was the leader of a major terrorist organization, and planned and carried out many attacks. McVeigh is at least notable for the bombing, and also for the trial and planning of that bombing, among other things. Martin never did ANYTHING. He was shot. He did not plan anything. He was not an activist or a terrorist mastermind. All he did was die. You statement that there is a "phenomenon" is an opinion. "Change the laws in this country" demonstrates that you are acting based on personal opinions, and trying to push a PoV. People search for all sorts of things that we do not have articles on. If we had an article on everything that was searched for by everyone, God knows what sort of diabolical compendium this would become. There is nothing about Martin that is notable outside of the context of the shooting, and in-context information should be included in the shooting article. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have completely misunderstood my comments above and that's perfectly understandable. But to now engage in an overly dramatic flair by asking rhetorical questions that you or I will never know the answer to, seems a bit of stretch, don't you think? Whatever answer you or I think is right in response to your questions would be nothing short of conjecture and assumptions on our part, would it not? Sure, you can cherry pick through my comments in an effort to falsely portray my motives in arguing for inclusion of this biographical entry of a notable person of interest, but you do realize that the value I place on your analytical cherry picking skills is zero, right? And for a teenager that never did ANYTHING, got shot, did not plan anything, was not an activist or terrorist mastermind and all he did was die, sure did receive a significant amount of national and international coverage, and yeah I know, there was a shooting.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  00:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It ought to be obvious that BLP1E cannot apply, and the extraordinary attention given the individual by national media demonstrates the subject's notability and enduring significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why can 1E not apply? We are not referring to BLP1E, which is for living persons, if that is what you are referring to. We are referring to WP:1E. Can you prove that the attention provided to Martin is encyclopedic? Useful from a historical perspective? Neutral in point-of-view? Does it derive from anything but the shooting? How can "enduring significance" be demonstrated so near to the event? Would one not have to wait years to see whether such claims are true? Must we not need historical distance to be even close to objective? RGloucester  — ☎ 17:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The number of questions you ask in lieu of advancing arguments is a very strong indication that you cannot sustain your burden of proof here. And the text of 1E strongly indicates notability here: it cites the independent Rodney King article, whose subject's role in an important event corresponds quite exactly to Trayvon Martin's. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fight with words, dear fellow, but I shan't flinch. Al shall merely state that any comparison to Rodney King is inappropriate. Rodney King is not notable for only one event. After that event, he made many other notable actions with significant media coverage. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, take note that Rodney King does not have two articles. Beating of Rodney King is a redirect. Rodney King riots exists, but that's totally different.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 18:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete anything useful should be merged to Shooting of Trayvon Martin. This subject differs from some mentioned above such as George Zimmerman and Rodney King because they became notable for a number of events, where as the only notability Trayvon has stems from his unfortunate death.LM2000 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 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.