798:
apart from the now-past event. Forward coverage of a person's life makes a person's ordinary life events extra ordinary and subsequent coverage of a person's life apart from the now-past event justifies a biography. Sometimes, coverage of a person's life going forward causes writers to look backwards in time to critically evaluate that persons life before the event. In
Trayvon Martin case, he really did not do anything out of the ordinary before the event that would cause writers to look backwards in time to critically evaluate his life before the event. They have written about it, but not because something he did stood out or merits critical review. Because he is deceased, there won't be any subsequent coverage of his life apart from the now-past event. So looking forwards and backwards, it does not seem that a biography is the main way to present Trayvon Martin's life elements.
634:
Elizabeth Smart is an activist. Comparing with Nicole Brown's article is also unsuitable, the article is brief and has no trivial information whereas
Travyon Martin's article is full of non encyclopedic content, there is also a chain of articles related to the subject, there is a controversial book by OJ Simpson which encompasses their story, there is a handful of theories regarding the cases, whereas Martyn's received notoriety for his racial aspect and misleading media reports, e.g.: Zimmerman is eligible for having an article because of its aftermath. The current article is unsuitable for Knowledge (XXG).
766:. Yes, a bunch of them are about his participation in the event, but a bunch are also just about him. Same principles. The problem with the delete argument is that it's based on factually incorrect assertions. In the future, please familiarise yourself with policies before trying to enforce them (and please familiarise yourself with articles before nominating them for deletion).
802:
the writers are motivated by the BLP1E event. So BLP1E is not an issue. However, because
Trayvon Martin essentially lived an ordinary life before coverage of his life began, there is nothing that stands out in Trayvon Martin life to justify a Knowledge (XXG) biography article. However, that is AfD argument, not DRV comment. The AfD debate was divided, so endorse no consensus. --
819:. I am sympathetic to the closer as there was little likelihood that any close would not bring opposition and a referral to DRV. However, based on the arguments made, where both "sides" made decent points but were in my opinion not able to refuse the other side, it is impossible to claim that there was a consensus for any particular outcome.
712:- people need to read policies before trying to apply them, rather than just being aware of the catchy word with the blue link. Yes, when all of the sources are about an event, rather than a person, the person should only be covered in the context of that event. A quick perusal of the sources show that ain't the case. Actually clicking
853:
highly significant event (and we shouldn't seek to substitute our own views on its significance for those of reliable sources). And they clearly treated him as playing a large role in the incident, as I would have thought was obvious in the case of a confrontation between two people in which one fatally shoots the other.
797:
In just about all cases, writers do not begin writing about someone's life at the moment that person is born. For example, biographers were not writing about Jesus or George
Washington on the day of their birth. In most biographies, an event will trigger subsequent coverage of a person's life events
847:
The close was clearly within the discretion of the closing admin, even though the "delete" arguments were so weak I would have been inclined to close it as "keep" (and I say that as someone initially inclined to think deletion would have been appropriate, until I examined what policy actually said).
793:
article, the aspects of a biography are 1. account of a person's life. Yes, there plenty of GNG about that for the
Trayvon Martin topic. 2. more than basic facts. Yes. the coverage is going to be very in-depth. 3. subject's experience of education, work, relationships, and death events. Yes, that is
735:
ONEEVENT says that if an individual is covered solely because they were involved in an event, an article is not justified. None of the sources are about
Trayvon at all - they are about the event and the effects of the event. Trayvon was just some random dude who isn't notable. (By the way, I was the
633:
Your rationale does not apply, Comparison with
Natalee is not applicable, her disappearance has spawned a chain of events which are linked or not to her, the fact she went missing, the circumstances of her presumably death, the investigation, the possible suspects and any chance or her reappearance.
801:
I think our focus on comparing the BLP1E one event to the person's life elements or, in this AfD, high-profile coverage is misplace when determining whether a topic can be presented as a biography. Writers are now writing about
Trayvon Martin's life merely because people are interested, not because
690:
Closing admin here (I wasn't notified of this discussion, BTW): both sides had reasonably policy-based arguments and relatively even numbers. It is certainly true that most people notable for one event don't get an article, but in exceptional cases, they can. The question was, is this an example of
373:
The discussion was closed with a no-consensus closure reason, however I'm inclined to accept it, the discussion could have been re-listed, which it wasn't, but the deletion reasons are far from fetched, but actually matches
Knowledge (XXG)'s spirit and guideline. The subject is only notable for his
663:
per Hobit. On one hand, we discourage articles on individuals notable for just one event. On the other, he was central to one of the major news stories of the year that got massive and sustained coverage by reliable sources. In this case I think the article adds to our coverage of the event and
852:
states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Few of those supporting deletion explained how that was inapplicable. Judging by the amount of coverage in reliable sources, this clearly qualifies as a
761:
as someone notable solely because they were involved in a single event, who nonetheless should be covered in a biographical article because he was the subject of biographical sources as a result, in which he, rather than his participation in the event, was the focus of the source. Then, go and
716:
shows that this kind of situation is explicitly not what ONEEVENT is about (but you'll have to read all the way to the second paragraph). Given the primary "delete" "argument" appeals solely to a gross misrepresentation of policy, there's no delete argument at all.
221:
The discussion linked in this nomination is from 2005. I'd like to point out that there have been many later discussions about this topic, but I don't have time now to find them all. The first of the sources linked above is clearly not reliable, but the
691:
an exceptional case that merits a separate article? I think that the participants were reasonably well divided on that question. Since it's a judgment that the community has to make, I didn't feel that I could close it one certain way without casting a
421:
On one side, this is a clear ONEEVENT situation. On the other, there was so much coverage of him, including his entire life, we've got plenty for an article on the person. Both are reasonable and numbers were close, so NC is a reasonable outcome.
489:
does not include this as one of its purposes (nor something excluded from its purposes). When an article has been deleted it is no longer possible to discuss matters at its erstwhile talk page. In this case
494:
can be used to discuss how to proceed. To my mind the seeming request for deletion unnecessarily polarised the AFD discussion. The nominator surely intended some form of redirection/merge with
884:
Both "no consensus" and "keep" were within discretion based on that debate. I think I'd personally have preferred "keep" but I won't give Mark Arsten a hard time for going the other way.—
34:
356:
151:
48:
43:
465:
Remember that
Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process...
757:
Please actually read ONEEVENT before making assertions about what it says. It most definitely does not say that. It uses the specific example of
203:
Substantially all of the recent edits from this IP have been disruptive. I should probably just revert this, but will leave it for a 2nd opinion.
748:
344:
39:
139:
191:
897:
21:
870:
to keep. The misapplications of policy by the delete voters were given far too much weight in assigning a no consensus close. `
539:
485:
I think it can be helpful sometimes to review an AFD even if the DRV nominator does not necessarily dispute the close. However
444:
would also have been a reasonable (and likely preferred) outcome, but no consensus is still within administrative discretion.
365:
789:
no consensus. - As Wily points out, ONEEVENT, at least its current wording, is not really applicable. From Knowledge (XXG)'s
160:
912:
294:
246:
89:
17:
535:
495:
476:
901:
879:
862:
839:
823:
811:
775:
752:
726:
704:
683:
653:
628:
591:
560:
543:
526:
507:
480:
453:
431:
412:
283:
235:
216:
78:
179:
231:
692:
700:
572:
applies to any notability regarding people, living or death, thus your argument is without unprecedent.
187:
849:
713:
569:
893:
739:
610:
491:
472:
314:
875:
807:
650:
588:
556:
409:
390:
209:
109:
226:
source might be something that we could use somewhere for coverage of this delusional thinking.
858:
522:
503:
227:
696:
602:
183:
486:
885:
770:
758:
721:
606:
449:
427:
173:
833:
820:
763:
665:
614:
310:
274:
267:
871:
803:
636:
574:
552:
395:
376:
204:
105:
70:
854:
518:
499:
75:
794:
written about. So what's missing? Why doesn't a biography fit in this satiation?
767:
718:
445:
423:
790:
169:
618:
551:
Since Trayvon Martin is no longer living, BLP1E or BIO1E does not apply.
440:
WilyD is in the right here and ONEEVENT is a significant stretch. So
832:, an accurate close which reflected the consensus in the discussion.
664:
that the encyclopedia is better with it than without it.
467:". The initiator of this review says of the close that "
351:
337:
329:
321:
174:
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/05/ruins-peoples-lives
146:
132:
124:
116:
74:– The nominating ip has been blocked for disruption. –
374:
circumstances, but the subject itself is not notable.
613:(other crime victims), then I see no reasons for
568:- BLP1E apply to biography of living person, but
8:
471:". We should therefore stop at that point.
293:The following is an archived debate of the
88:The following is an archived debate of the
260:
63:
170:http://www.exposegangstalking.com/summary
736:one who nominated this for deletion).
271:– "No consensus" closure endorsed. –
7:
601:If Knowledge (XXG) has articles for
915:of the page listed in the heading.
249:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
762:actually read the sources in the
911:The above is an archive of the
617:to be considered for deletion.
393:02:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
245:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
527:08:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
508:08:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
481:06:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
432:03:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
413:02:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
236:21:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
217:15:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
1:
534:per Hobit's sound analysis.
469:I'm inclined to accept it...
194:) 15:06, September 30, 2013
902:08:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
880:08:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
863:06:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
840:15:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
824:08:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
812:04:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
776:10:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
753:03:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
727:11:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
705:18:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
684:16:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
654:19:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
629:15:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
592:13:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
561:03:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
544:00:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
454:20:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
284:10:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
79:05:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
938:
817:Endorse no consensus close
496:Shooting of Trayvon Martin
918:Please do not modify it.
300:Please do not modify it.
252:Please do not modify it.
95:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
517:. I agree with Hobit.
463:We are told above to "
536:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
611:Nicole Brown Simpson
436:I'll just note that
168:New evidence as per
492:Talk:Trayvon Martin
297:of the page above.
92:of the page above.
925:
924:
900:
282:
259:
258:
214:
196:
182:comment added by
59:30 September 2013
35:2013 September 29
929:
920:
892:
890:
773:
742:
724:
710:Overturn to Keep
681:
678:
675:
672:
626:
603:Natalee Holloway
368:
363:
354:
340:
332:
324:
302:
281:
279:
272:
261:
254:
210:
207:
195:
176:
163:
158:
149:
135:
127:
119:
97:
64:
53:
33:
937:
936:
932:
931:
930:
928:
927:
926:
916:
913:deletion review
886:
771:
759:Gavrilo Princip
751:
741:Taylor Trescott
740:
722:
679:
676:
673:
670:
619:
607:Elizabeth Smart
364:
362:
359:
350:
349:
343:
336:
335:
328:
327:
320:
319:
298:
295:deletion review
275:
273:
250:
247:deletion review
213:
205:
177:
159:
157:
154:
145:
144:
138:
131:
130:
123:
122:
115:
114:
93:
90:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
935:
933:
923:
922:
907:
906:
905:
904:
882:
865:
842:
827:
814:
800:
799:
796:
795:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
764:Trayvon Martin
747:
730:
729:
707:
687:
686:
666:Andrew Lenahan
658:
657:
656:
615:Trayvon Martin
596:
595:
594:
546:
529:
512:
511:
510:
458:
457:
456:
371:
370:
360:
347:
341:
333:
325:
317:
311:Trayvon Martin
305:
304:
289:
288:
287:
286:
268:Trayvon Martin
257:
256:
241:
240:
239:
238:
219:
211:
166:
165:
155:
142:
136:
128:
120:
112:
100:
99:
84:
83:
82:
81:
61:
56:
49:2013 October 1
47:
44:2013 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
934:
921:
919:
914:
909:
908:
903:
899:
895:
891:
889:
883:
881:
877:
873:
869:
866:
864:
860:
856:
851:
846:
843:
841:
838:
836:
831:
828:
825:
822:
818:
815:
813:
809:
805:
792:
788:
785:
784:
777:
774:
769:
765:
760:
756:
755:
754:
750:
745:
744:
743:
734:
733:
732:
731:
728:
725:
720:
715:
711:
708:
706:
702:
698:
694:
689:
688:
685:
682:
667:
662:
659:
655:
652:
651:
649:
648:
645:
642:
639:
632:
631:
630:
627:
624:
623:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
597:
593:
590:
589:
587:
586:
583:
580:
577:
571:
567:
564:
563:
562:
558:
554:
550:
547:
545:
541:
537:
533:
530:
528:
524:
520:
516:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
488:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:
433:
429:
425:
420:
417:
416:
415:
414:
411:
410:
408:
407:
404:
401:
398:
392:
391:
389:
388:
385:
382:
379:
367:
358:
353:
346:
339:
331:
323:
316:
312:
309:
308:
307:
306:
303:
301:
296:
291:
290:
285:
280:
278:
270:
269:
265:
264:
263:
262:
255:
253:
248:
243:
242:
237:
233:
229:
225:
224:New Statesman
220:
218:
215:
208:
202:
199:
198:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
175:
171:
162:
153:
148:
141:
134:
126:
118:
111:
107:
106:Gang stalking
104:
103:
102:
101:
98:
96:
91:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
72:
71:Gang stalking
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
917:
910:
887:
867:
844:
834:
829:
816:
786:
738:
737:
709:
693:WP:SUPERVOTE
669:
660:
646:
643:
640:
637:
635:
621:
620:
598:
584:
581:
578:
575:
573:
565:
548:
531:
514:
468:
464:
461:Speedy Close
460:
441:
437:
418:
405:
402:
399:
396:
394:
386:
383:
380:
377:
375:
372:
299:
292:
276:
266:
251:
244:
228:Phil Bridger
223:
200:
178:— Preceding
167:
94:
87:
69:
58:
850:WP:ONEEVENT
714:WP:ONEEVENT
697:Mark Arsten
570:WP:ONEEVENT
184:198.7.58.81
888:S Marshall
277:Sandstein
821:Lankiveil
791:biography
872:Jclemens
868:Overturn
837:avarrone
804:Jreferee
749:my edits
553:Jclemens
192:contribs
180:unsigned
20: |
855:Neljack
845:Endorse
830:Endorse
787:Endorse
661:Endorse
599:Comment
566:Comment
532:Endorse
519:Thincat
515:Endorse
500:Thincat
419:Endorse
366:restore
330:history
161:restore
125:history
76:Spartaz
487:WP:DRV
473:Warden
746:- +
446:Hobit
424:Hobit
352:watch
345:links
206:Monty
147:watch
140:links
52:: -->
16:<
876:talk
859:talk
808:talk
768:Wily
719:Wily
701:talk
609:and
557:talk
549:Note
540:talk
523:talk
504:talk
477:talk
450:talk
442:keep
438:Mark
428:talk
338:logs
322:edit
315:talk
232:talk
201:Note
188:talk
172:and
133:logs
117:edit
110:talk
32:<
677:bli
357:XfD
355:) (
212:845
152:XfD
150:) (
22:Log
878:)
861:)
810:)
703:)
695:.
680:nd
674:ar
671:St
668:-
647:ni
644:mo
641:ue
638:Ed
625:iz
605:,
585:ni
582:mo
579:ue
576:Ed
559:)
542:)
525:)
506:)
498:.
479:)
452:)
430:)
406:ni
403:mo
400:ue
397:Ed
387:ni
384:mo
381:ue
378:Ed
234:)
190:•
42::
898:C
896:/
894:T
874:(
857:(
835:C
826:.
806:(
772:D
723:D
699:(
622:L
555:(
538:(
521:(
502:(
475:(
448:(
426:(
369:)
361:|
348:|
342:|
334:|
326:|
318:|
313:(
230:(
186:(
164:)
156:|
143:|
137:|
129:|
121:|
113:|
108:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.