Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Baltz

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 Keep. Cbrown1023 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Baltz

non notable crash survivor; a tragedy, but I don't think this boy became notable just by living a short while after the crash. Prod removed (see talk page.) Brianyoumans 18:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently I disagree with Brian: surviving such a crash, even for a short time, makes for notability. Certainly I would expect anyone else who survived such a crash, especially if the only one, to become notable. Ringbark 18:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's notable isn't our subjective opinion of what seems "important," but whether the subject of the article was considered notable by other sources. The source included in the article appears credible and verifiable. In addition, I'm concerned that deleting this article smacks of recentism--if this was a more current event, we could easily produce a lot of newspaper sources for something like this. It seems to be on the order of common-sense that there would have been additional newspaper articles on the subject dating to the time of the event; so given that there's already one solid source for it, I'd say leave it as-is and perhaps add additional sources when they can be found. Tarinth 19:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting and notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tarinth who explains it well. It was undoubtedly notable in it's time forty six years ago. Time does not diminish notability and it is verified and hopefully further sources can be found.--Dakota 03:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge He is mentioned in the main article [1960_New_York_air_disaster]] about this crash and not much more encyclopedic material will ever be developed here which would justify a separate article. In cases like these we merge whats important into a parent article--and there is one. Be certain to add the article linked here (which is really part 2 of the original piece in the Park Slope Reader).--RCEberwein | Talk 05:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.