Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Burke: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 78: Line 78:
*'''Keep.''' There can be no doubt that the media coverage of his coming-out easily passes [[WP:GNG]] (''why'' the media covered it is of course irrelevant). There is also no doubt that the media coverage of his death passes that same guideline. Since those are ''two'' events, the [[WP:BLP1E]] exception does not apply. There are no other relevant exceptions, so we can't delete or merge this article without violating our own policy. [[User:EdvardMunch|EdvardMunch]] ([[User talk:EdvardMunch|talk]]) 18:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' There can be no doubt that the media coverage of his coming-out easily passes [[WP:GNG]] (''why'' the media covered it is of course irrelevant). There is also no doubt that the media coverage of his death passes that same guideline. Since those are ''two'' events, the [[WP:BLP1E]] exception does not apply. There are no other relevant exceptions, so we can't delete or merge this article without violating our own policy. [[User:EdvardMunch|EdvardMunch]] ([[User talk:EdvardMunch|talk]]) 18:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' The first article in the sources section is a feature article of which he is the primary subject from a notable secondary source (ESPN.com). It is my understanding that this is the [[Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria|Basic Criteria]] that has to be met. -[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] ([[User talk:DropDeadGorgias|talk]]) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' The first article in the sources section is a feature article of which he is the primary subject from a notable secondary source (ESPN.com). It is my understanding that this is the [[Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria|Basic Criteria]] that has to be met. -[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] ([[User talk:DropDeadGorgias|talk]]) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:: I want to say that the nonsense that is being peddled by those who oppose merge/redirect (I oppose redirect also, just merge in my opinion) that those who disagree with them are conservative Christian homophobes is sheer stupidity and vitriol. We should begin closing this [[WP:AFD]] out. [[User:Rms125a@hotmail.com|Rms125a@hotmail.com]] ([[User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com|talk]]) 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:: I want to say that the nonsense that is being peddled by those who oppose merge/redirect (I oppose redirect also, just merge in my opinion) that those who disagree with them are conservative Christian homophobes is sheer stupidity and vitriol. We should begin closing this [[WP:AFD]] out. [[User:Rms125a@hotmail.com|Rms125a@hotmail.com]] ([[User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com|talk]]) 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::I would please request that commenters please take note of [[Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith]] and [[Wikipedia:Civility]]. A vote for keep, delete, or merge should be viewed as simply that, without any subtext or agenda. --[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] ([[User talk:DropDeadGorgias|talk]]) 19:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:26, 8 February 2010

Brendan Burke

Brendan Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recommend for deletion as NON-NOTABLE I originally placed a Speedydelete tag when the article was first created, but noted in my edit summary after deleting the tag when the article was improved that I reserved the right to WP:AFD. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I did find some articles about Burke from before his death; here and here. They reference an ESPN article which I haven't yet located. Brendan's chief accomplishments appear to be (a) being related to a notable person; (b) coming out as gay, and (c) dying young. I have no doubt that he was a good person, well loved by his friends and family, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, and I'm not convinced that his accomplishments meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've gotta be kidding me (ie.: keep). Non-notable? This is getting wall to wall coverage in the New York market, let alone all of Canada...
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just under 1000 views today. "Non-notable"? Do you people live in a cave or something?
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't live in a cave, but I don't live in Canada, either. I'm open to the possibility that I am mistaken; that's why they didn't make me the boss of Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I'm just a little flabbergasted at the use of "non-notable" here. I just mean, it just seems that if multiple international news publications (in at least New York, probably the reast of the US, all over Canada, and in several places in Europe) doesn't meet some minimal bar of "significant coverage" then that leads me to really question why we bother even having a guideline about this sort of thing. I'm not of the school that we should never delete articles here, or that "not news" is wrong, or anything like that, but this also isn't my first brush with nominations that seem to have their heads stuck in the sand re: current events either.
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A bit torn about this one. He was some sort of notable, but probably not in a way to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. OTOH there is some reliable coverage about him pre-mortem, although this generally only covers the way he dealt with his sexuality. But yet it's not enough to consider him some sort of 'gay icon' to establish notability. noisy jinx huh? 23:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to the dead, I must note that the number of Google hits are surely due to the recentness of the shocking tragedy of the unfortunate young mens' deaths. Many of the hits are from mirror/vampire sites. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support merging the salient data from Brendan Burke's page to his father's. But given the vandalism (see below) I suggest the page itself be deleted and SALTED, not redirected. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous IP vandal (User:216.26.223.50) removed the AFD notice. I restored it but let's keep an eye out. Perhaps someone could leave a warning notice to the offending party since my warnings have been deemed by other editors to be too harsh. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it (merge). New Orleans is ahead, unfortunately!! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - Notable out athlete, famous father, and tragic death. This article should not be deleted, it is an important piece. kcflood (talk) 9:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete - One of the first out ice hockey players in public. With a father in this high position in sport and to stand up for his homosexuality is worth an article. 13:36, 8 February 20010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.116.52.104 (talk)

Wow, let's just make the life of a man well-known in the homosexual community disappear. This is so typical- we don't exist because you do not want us to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.62.48 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This deletion has nothing to do with him being gay." Bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.171.234 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err on the side of cautious. Leave the page independent. It is/he is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.49.130 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE THIS PAGE AS IT IS!!! The young man deserves the respect of every human being for standing up for who he was and for having the courage to live openly and happily. This is a tragic event and he should be honored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.65.109 (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason for keeping an article under Wikipedia guidelines. You can say the same thing about thousands of people who have died tragically; that does not mean they meet notability requirements here. Pats1 T/C 16:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. he is certainly noteworthy as this has received coverage and his death was marked as such a tragedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.131.192 (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete - His orientation is the key to his importance. He's a rare gay athlete who had the courage to come out publicly in a super-"masculine" sport viewed as being homophobic and as having homophobic fans - even more notably because he is the son of a superstar in that sport, so he faced even greater pressures. He has been lauded as a role model in the gay community and for young (and not so young) gay athletes everywhere; the reaction to his coming out (both from his teammates and his family) also serves as a model. This was a significant and noteworthy event, covered in major mainstream news media like ESPN (article by John Buccigross), and he is one of an incredibly small group of athletes/people involved in mainstream pro athletics who had dared to go public with his orientation - this alone makes him worthy of an article of his own. Any other view is, I agree, anti-gay bigotry and nothing more, or at the very least failure to appreciate the enormity of his actions and the potential scope of the impact of those actions, as well as his role-model status, even after his tragically early death (which serves to further illustrate the importance of making peace with your loved ones while you can). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justacat66 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not Wikipedia's job or place to specifically create role models, on either side of any issue. Pats1 T C 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This "deletion" issue is getting a great deal of coverage on gay blogs. With comments like "being gay or dying do not constitute notability" and flippant remarks about drinking/watching football while debating the deletion of a prominent young gay man's page, you aren't doing Wikipedia any favors. Basically it looks like a bunch of homophobic straight men are censoring Wikipedia because gay stuff makes you uncomfortable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.11.9 (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the Wikipedia guidelines you were referring to in support of your "keep" vote. The fact of the matter is, being gay or dying do not constitute notability per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. That's all I care about. I'm all for having an extended section on Brian Burke on his son, but the relevant guidelines do not support him having his own article. Pats1 T/C 17:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can tell that it is getting coverage somewhere given the number of unregistered users contributing. I would make mention that AfD debates are not a majority vote, nor are assumptions of bigotry a valid keep argument. (I would also mention that a person who assumes bigotry wherever he turns needs only to look in the mirror to find it). Notability is not inherited. Burke's notability in this case does not stem from being gay, but from being the son of a famous NHL general manager. If he was the son of a plumber in Columbus, his coming out would have been a local story, not much more. WP:BLP1E argues against standalone articles for people who've been involved in one event, which is why the merge suggestion is being offered - to put the important information in the proper article. WP:NOTMEMORIAL says that dying does not make one notable. These are all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Resolute 16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His notability has been established (see many references, above). The deletionists can't have it both ways - either we accept that he fulfills the criterion for notability (by any reasonable standard) or we admit that we are just deleting for the pleasure of being nasty. American conservative Christianity can't not be the basis for ignoring our policies.Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False dilemmas are not valid. Resolute 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - the athlete in question received huge amounts of publicity prior to his death on the very account of being gay - while this in itself does not constitute notability per se, the circumstances certainly do; ESPN and other agencies have given his situation considerable coverage as a person who has significantly helped to break down the barriers of homophobia in professional hockey, and addressed the ramifications elsewhere. Basic checks will demonstrate that his name is searched for with regularity, so he is no less deserving of a simple entry than anyone else, and certainly more deserving than certain topless models who seem to have Wikipedia entries. It certainly doesn't bother me that the individual in question was gay, but I get the impression that some people do take exception to that; to succumb to this sort of petty hatred may set a bad precedent for Wikipedia and its reputation as an inclusive informational resource. Attenboroughii (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You mean that a lot of people are alleging bias, a lot easier reason to parse than quoting how this article meets the requirements of relevant policies and guidelines. As far as your basic checks go, basic checks also demonstrate that Burke's been searched about a thousand times as often in the last week than for the previous year.  RGTraynor  18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Per above. I just looked through G-News archive myself (for articles before January) and it's damned scanty. I see nothing in WP:BIO or WP:N stating that "being publically gay" is a prima facie notability pass, and given WP:NOTINHERITED, there's nothing in Burke's CV that would earn him independent notability were it not for having a well-known father. I strongly recommend that some of the Keep proponents take the time to read the pertinent policies and guidelines which define notability; it is a common fallacy on Wikipedia to define "notability" as "I think the guy's important." That being said, I find the catcalling about bigotry reprehensible and disgusting. Strange though it may seem to some people - and I would certainly have liked to think better of registered editors - it's perfectly possible to apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines to articles without having an axe to grind, and furthermore there are actually editors who do so.  RGTraynor  18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There can be no doubt that the media coverage of his coming-out easily passes WP:GNG (why the media covered it is of course irrelevant). There is also no doubt that the media coverage of his death passes that same guideline. Since those are two events, the WP:BLP1E exception does not apply. There are no other relevant exceptions, so we can't delete or merge this article without violating our own policy. EdvardMunch (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first article in the sources section is a feature article of which he is the primary subject from a notable secondary source (ESPN.com). It is my understanding that this is the Basic Criteria that has to be met. -DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say that the nonsense that is being peddled by those who oppose merge/redirect (I oppose redirect also, just merge in my opinion) that those who disagree with them are conservative Christian homophobes is sheer stupidity and vitriol. We should begin closing this WP:AFD out. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would please request that commenters please take note of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and Wikipedia:Civility. A vote for keep, delete, or merge should be viewed as simply that, without any subtext or agenda. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brendan_Burke&oldid=342756820"