Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (4th nomination)

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 no consensus.

Wow, this was a mess to figure out. Looking over the history of the previous AfD's, only the first one seems relevant. The 2nd and 3rd nominations where both closed for procedural reasons, without any real debate. And, just to add confusion, there appears to be two 2nd nominations, but one of them (for reasons that I cannot fathom) is a redirect to the other. The reason I mention all this is because it makes the Keep per all the other past debates comment seem not as strong an argument as it might appear at first.

Anyway, numerically, there are more people arguing Keep than Delete, but some of the Keep arguments don't strike me as being particularly policy based, so I'm going to call this No Consensus. Which of course defaults to the article being kept (but with no bias against future AfD nominations).

What I find most interesting is that the 1st nomination (4-1/2 years ago) drew an overwhelming Keep consensus. I'm not sure if policy has changed since then, or the community has evolved their thinking, or it's just luck of the draw who happened to participate in the two AfDs.

-- RoySmith (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy[edit]

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

I recently CSD'd this under A7, though an admin declined it since it was not an "incontestable" deletion and suggested AfD. After looking into this article's talk page, I see it previously went through 3 AfD's and was kept due to many reliable third-party sources covering him. However, I am renominating due to WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:BIO1E. The "1E" in this instance being his death. Granted this was a widely publicized event, but it was essentially the only thing he was noted for. All the sources are essentially regurgitating the same thing. Due to most sources only talking about him briefly, he should be redirected to Kennedy family or deleted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He isn't notable simply for dying; he's notable for being a child born to a sitting United States President. As such, there has surely been plenty of discussion of this child in sources, both at the time and in years since. Everyking (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"He's notable for being a child born to a sitting United States President" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions per WP:INHERIT. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say his notability is inherited. I said the world viewed him as notable in light of his paternity. If the world viewed him instead as notable for the manner of his death, or if the world just thought he was an especially adorable baby, it's all the same—notable is notable. Everyking (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable in light of his paternity" is basically an WP:INHERIT argument since it suggests he was notable for his family affiliations. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable because people viewed him as important and worthy of attention. He's not automatically notable because he had a famous father. He's notable because having a famous father led to him receiving a great deal of attention from the wider world. Do you not understand the difference? Everyking (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The attention only came from one event though (living for two days before succumbing to respiratory issues), which is why I mention WP:BIO1E and also WP:NOTNEWS. He also fails WP:ANYBIO. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Alternatively merge to Kennedy family. Sadly, in his few hours on earth he did not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A third of what was written about him was actually about IRDS (IRDS today, to be precise). I removed irrelevant information, but suspect it will be reinserted because hardly anything else can be said about the child (which is actually very telling). The section title called "Biography" sounds rather silly, really. Surtsicna (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether this is conceptualized as a notable event or a notable person (which is what WP:BIO1E is about), it remains notable. So whether it's called "Death of Patrick Bouvier Kennedy" or "Patrick Bouvier Kennedy", it's certainly encyclopedic. I think the material covered fits more comfortably as an article separate from a "Kennedy family" article. And Surtsicna's prophesy, I think, should be fulfilled. Material about IRDS belongs here, because Patrick's death was the first major well-known death from this syndrome; and for the historical information to be useful it should in fact be contrasted with current information. - Nunh-huh 04:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he could be redirected to the page on IRDS or a page listing victims of IRDS. WP:BIO1E indicates that one event alone is generally not enough to make someone notable. I could be missing something, but I don't see anything on "Surtsicna's prophesy" in this article. As previously indicated, all the sources available on him are essentially regurgitating the same thing: He lived for two days before succumbing to IRDS. Definitely seems like a case of WP:NOTNEWS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the other past debates. The subject was incredibly notable at the time of his death -- headline news for days and days -- and once notable, always notable. His death triggered a series of events that lead to Jackie K.O. going on the only political trip of her life. Her frozen face on the image at the right spoke not only of the grief of the loss of her husband, literally in her lap, but of the continuing postpartum depression to which she suffered. The problem is not one of notability, but that there's not many online sources about the subject, who died decades before the Internet. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't whether sources are online or print. The issue is that he fails WP:ANYBIO and is a case of WP:NOTNEWS, which states "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic". Clear case of WP:BIO1E. How his death affected his family doesn't exactly make him notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is that his death affected the whole world, and that his death lead, by way on unhappy coincidences, to the death of his father. I am citing, first, an example of but for causation. Secondly, his death was major news, not just the BLPOE type of news, but headline, history-making, serious people reported and read this, for the record, sort of news. Not all news is the same. The single event, or series of events, he is associated with, changed history. To further quote WP:BLP: "John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." There has been consistent coverage of the death of the subject. If it matters, I would not oppose a move to Death of Patrick Bouvier Kennedy. Finally, paper sources could be used to better source the article, the impact of his death, etc. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would be willing to change my opinion if there were, in fact, continuing coverage of PBK the same way as there has been of John Hinckley, Jr, but I don't see it. Please, show me. --GRuban (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are dozens of Google Books hits since 2000. Abductive (reasoning) 03:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, as the raw number of sources mentioning a subject is not by itself an indicator of notability per WP:MASK and WP:HITS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sigh. Snuggums, first, I'm pretty sure I explained about that link, in a different discussion where we disagreed. I asked for sources. Just now. Right above. This is a response to my request. Anyway, Abductive, I clicked that link. The first result is "Sizwe's Test: A Young Man's Journey Through Africa's AIDS ...Jonny Steinberg - A heartbreaking tale of shame and pride, sex and death, and a continent's battle with its demons". The second is "How We Die There are many books intended to help people deal with the trauma of bereavement, but few which explore the reality of death itself". The third is "St. Lucy's Home for Girls Raised by Wolves". I see absolutely nothing there that looks like in depth writing about Patrick Bouvier Kennedy. Two, in fact, seem to be works of fiction. Please, be specific; where is the coverage? --GRuban (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, you did ask for such results. I simply felt it should be noted that google search results alone aren't enough to establish notability. If talking about referral to WP:ATA, it's not like I was simply saying "see WP:HITS" or anything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BLP1E does not apply, since there are at least three events: His birth, his death, and his impact on medicine. Abductive (reasoning) 03:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one event: his (brief) life. I also still fail to see how he passes WP:BIO. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have to pass WP:BIO, he passes the GNG. Abductive (reasoning) 05:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would it take to convince you of his notability, Snuggums? Are there any sources we could provide that you would accept as proving the case? Everyking (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Article was WP:N and WP:GNG per very strong consensus in 2009, so therefore it still is per WP:NTEMP. Nothing can change the past unless we want to start rewriting history due to POV which appears to be the case here. CSD A7? Really? VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you there is no POV here. Only reason I A7'd it is because I hadn't previously known of 3 past AfD's. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A PROD or an inital AfD would have been appropriate, but CSD A7 is only to be used if there is little if any doubt. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite confident that there was little to no doubt, but that was before seeing 3 previous AfD's. I admittedly should've checked beforehand, though. If it wasn't for those past AfD's, I would've PROD'd after the CSD A7 was declined. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there is an entire bibliography of print sources about the subject's death here in a book about the Kennedy family and a three-paragraph biography in The Encyclopedia of Motherhood, a description of how Patrick's death actually changed public opinion of the President. There is also a fuller description of the effect on his parents and how it lead to them being together on November 22, 1963. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would make no sense to redlink this so delete is inappropriate and this nomination was also inappropriate. Whether the article becomes redirected, merged or kept is a matter far better dealt with at the talk page and this flexibility is best handled under a keep banner. Thincat (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have not explained how anything here is "inappropriate" or why it should be kept. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you have not explained why you have disregarded the first instruction in WP:Articles for deletion, namely "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." You have said in your nomination that in your opinion deletion is not required and that redirection would suffice. Therefore you should not have come to AFD. Thincat (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got my point all wrong. I was giving redirect as an alternative, and articles can be brought back to AfD if problems brought up in previous AfD's have not been addressed. One issue that is not resolved since first AfD is that he does not have much notability independent of his family affiliations. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2014 (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.