Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Birch (journalist)

Michael Birch (journalist)

Michael Birch (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The is coverage of the event in which he died but that is about the event, not Birch, and Wikipedia is not the news. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Change from Keep to same but Rename (See below): Birch has WP:SIGCOV in monographs that are not on the Internet. Still enough is on the Internet that clearly shows that WP:LASTING is also relevant here in our evaluation. The nominator misses the overall phenomenon of Journalists killed while covering military conflicts and mistakes it for memorials and news. A couple of references in an article about a person doesn't mean that the article is a memorial from school chums.Crtew (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you specify which articles have significant coverage about Birch. The enough on the internet shows the event where the four journalist were killed has a lasting impact (WP:LAST is for events). It does not say the same for all the individuals involved. What we see is that Michael Birch, 24, was a promising young reporter from Melbourne. The phenomenon of Journalists killed is notable but not all the individuals are. WP:VICTIM is probably the closest guidline here. It's not the just the "couple of references in an article" that connect it to the school, it's the flooding by an involved party (recently a SPA) onto Wikipedia of the multitude of bios of non notable people from that one school. See here for a list of current AfDs. This glut includes clearly innapropriate pages like this. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've changed my mind as I've expanded and added references to the article: The treatment should shift from the person to the overall event, renamed, and deal equally with all of the participants. This was the only event where Australian journalists were killed during the Vietnam War. This is still not the news as the event is WP:Lasting for later treatments, including the meeting between the only survivor and the Vietnamese leader or its place in the Indo-China war memorial to journalists. Moreover, Birch was most likely singled out as he survived the initial burst of gunfire and clearly identified the group as journalists, which places this incident in a new category under international law as a human rights violation. I still adamantly disagree with associating this article with school chum memorials. It's too important an event to be dismissed as such. The above SPA is irrelevant in my decision-making. Does anybody have a good suggestion for a renaming? Crtew (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep, important participant in very tragic event.Rick570 (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)