Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death and state funeral of Jack Layton

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mwilso24 (talk | contribs) at 11:34, 24 August 2011 (Added comment supporting keeping the article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Death and state funeral of Jack Layton

Death and state funeral of Jack Layton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Most of this material is already in the subject's biography Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd have to agree with CharlieEchoTango's comments that this is a clear keep. Can we please not have a big red deletion tag on the article while the funeral is actually taking place and being broadcast by all the major Canadian networks? It's a little embarrassing. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed... I think the nominator should seriously consider retracting this nomination, it is not going to succeed — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 02:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to note that I see the nominator's point (and, as a matter of fact, I was about to nominate it for WP:SPEEDY under A10); this is essentially a fork from the main article. To compare it to Ronald Reagan's and Pierre Trudeau's articles is a little rash, because the state funerals of those persons were large events and had much to write about (and, to boot, Trudeau's made Newsmaker of the Year by the Canadian Press). If Jack Layton's funeral turns out to be like many other funerals, then there really is no reason to keep this article. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a fork, and forks are perfectly fine. What about WP:GNG, Ericleb01? This topic has already been the subject of multiple, substantial, non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, which will be multiplied when the funeral actually happens (you guys know how big these funerals get, right? More than 50,000 people paid their respect to Trudeau, if I recall correctly). So no, it's not rash to compare PET's funeral to Layton's funeral, although they do have a different context (one a former head of government, the other the first leader of the opposition to be granted the honour of a state funeral). But regardless of any other argument, it easily, and already, passes GNG, which is in itself a reason to keep. Best, — Charlie Echo Tango — 03:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sympathetic delete. That something is a notable facet of something else does not automatically necessitate a new article. There isn't much to add to this fork that isn't already in Layton's article, and aside from the repetitive platitudes from politicos offering condolences, there simply wont be much new in this article even after the funeral. That being said, the result of this AFD was a foregone conclusion from the start, as WP:NOTNEWS almost never defeats a rush to cover what does not require it's own article so soon after an event. Resolute 03:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep with no prejudice against a 2nd AFD nomination or merge after the event. Notability is clear, as per Charlie Echo Tango above. If there are strong arguments that this is an unnecessary content fork after the event, renominate it for merge or deletion.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Given that Jack Layton#Illness and death is just about as large as this article, I also wonder if this is an unnecessary split, not to mention both are saying similar things. It seems very redundant to me. However, I'm not Canadian, and I don't know how this will play out, so I could be jumping the gun here. But I need to mention that, just because something has some reliable sources, doesn't always mean that it needs to have a separate article just because the notability guidelines say so. If something can be mentioned easily in the context in another article and no other issues are present, then I see no reason to scatter everything all over the place and fluster readers. (gets off soapbox) –MuZemike 04:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment. You mention that the section in the main article is just about as large as this article, and I agree it is right now; however, this is very much a current event and my belief is that this article will expand over the week and especially over the week-end when all heads are turned towards this funeral. I've seen too many times where a 'news' article is nominated to AfD with the underlying argument that is too small/should be merged but somehow survives and becomes much bigger. That is the very nature of current events. But then I know this is not covered by any guideline and at this time edges on the side of WP:CRYSTAL. As for your mention of 'reliable source' vs. 'notability of a specific topic', I also agree, but I would point out that when there is a significant coverage of a specific topic (Death of Layton) that is separate from coverage of a larger topic (Layton), then yes it demonstrates a definite level of notability. If people think there is not enough coverage just yet (I believe there is, but that is subjective), then I urge everyone people to wait and see what will happen this week-end when all media outlets in this country will be busy canonizing Layton. And saints are surely notable, aren't they? Joke aside, this is a clear cut case by all means. Let's not repeat the '2011 UK riot' AfD and countless others who have turned out to be very notable by themselves. — Charlie Echo Tango — 04:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This vote is suspicious. It shouldnt be counted
    I'm sure the closing administrator will be able to assess !votes by him/herself. Care to explain why you think it is 'suspicious'? — Charlie Echo Tango — 05:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is clear as this is state funeral.Wheatsing (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article will probably be expanded after the funeral is held. 70.77.248.62 (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Considering it's the first time the Leader of the Opposition has been given a state funeral, It is at least notable in the short term. Perhaps later it can be combined, but right now, let's keep a separate article for any more information. ^_^ ^_^ (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Jack Layton is a very notable politician, in Canada. I bet if this was an American politician, Americans would strongly reject deletion of the article. This RFD is a strong reminder of the inherent American-centrism of this whole website. NorthernThunder (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What utter bullshit. The nominator isn't even American... why do so many Canadians always blame everything on Americans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.108.96 (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_and_state_funeral_of_Jack_Layton&oldid=446473061"