The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Philip Gale → Philip Gale — While the subject is indeed largely notable for his suicide, this article is structured as a normal biography and not an article about a single event, as the current title would suggest. Since the subject is dead, WP:BLP1E is inapplicable; I also don't see a particularly obvious choice for a more widely scoped article to upmerge this one into. IMO, this seems a perfectly fine standalone article anyway. I see no need to accentuate the death (which should be "suicide" anyway if we're to be accurate & frank) so very strongly in the title and suggest we treat it like any other biography article. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. a) the fact that this is written like a normal biography is irrelevant - if that's an issue re-write it. It isn't hard. b) Philip Gale is not notable. The only thing that is notable is his death (and there's not even a consensus to say that his death is notable). We don't write biographies on non-notable people. c) BLP1E says we write about notable events rather than unnotable people. That's a perfectly valid principle here, and just as valid for the dead. The nominator fails to give any reason why a biography would be appropriate or better. Changing dead to suicide is an issue that could be discussed separately.--Scott Mac 13:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why his claim to notability can't be his death. Compare Matthew Shepard, Amber Hagerman, etc. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Let's not try to distinguish between individuals notable only for their death and notable individual deaths. Srnec (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The article as it stands is about the individual, not just his death, and appears to be encyclopedic. Andrewa (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The event is notable. The person isn't. Nothing more to say really.Griswaldo (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, why can't his death be his source of notability? --Cybercobra (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, why not write about the notable thing. Why is a biography preferable?--Scott Mac 09:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't care hugely about the content styling (bio vs. event), but the current title is more verbose and unintuitive than necessary. And person vs. death notability seems to be hair-splitting, IMO. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Neither the person nor the suicide are in any way notable outside of the closed environs of hubbardistas vs their critics. If the subject didn't have a tenuous link to the Hubbardistas it would almost certainly never have been written, and would never be defended with the vigour that it attracts. That a 19 yo student commits suicide is pretty much a SO WHAT? Stupid article, stupid title, and another stupid discussion around it. John lilburne (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject is notable based on our notability criteria. If there was no link to Scientology the subject would not have been written about in enough reliable sources to meet that criteria in the first place, and it certainly would never have been covered in Wikipedia. But that is neither here nor there. Now that someone has created the entry, and it is clear that there is enough sourcing to show notability it is our responsibility to cover it as well as possible. Can we just focus on that please? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subject is notable based on our notability criteria. Well someone needs to work on that. Do you not find it rather odd to define notability based on stuff that was false? Because on that bases one would expect a whole article on this fellow given the amount that was written in RS on false premises too. John lilburne (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I accept that there are some bios of people notable for their deaths that are just titled under their names, but we also have many that do have Death of ... in the name. On balance, the latter seems more appropriate. --JN466 14:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support based on finding "Death of [person's name]" to be a gruesome title, which I suppose is an IDONTLIKEIT rationale. That there are other "Death of" articles is OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I mostly concur that Gale didn't meet GNG during his lifetime. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Added: What I'm saying is I don't think naming an article after a person requires the article to be a biography, e.g. Matthew Shepard as Cybercobra mentioned. Gale's death got considerable media coverage and I the article contents as they stand (they are mostly non-biographical) either have or don't have sufficient sourcing to meet relevant requirements, independently of the title. The title is just to have something to call the article and isn't of overwhelming significance to the article classification. Classification is mostly a matter of interpretation and is part of what categories are for. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am little conflicted here as if we moved it into biography territory We could delete it as non-notable person. People look at the history this page it was originally Called Philip Gale. An AFD put it under threat of deletion as WP:BIO1E but was moved to "death of" in the middle of it as it has better chance of surviving under WP:EVENT. I dont think We should have it at all and should be deleted as Coatrack but lacking another AFD discussion thats not a call I can make on the talk. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 19:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Only became notable for the death and the article is not structured like a biography. It is heavily weighted to the suicide (which is as it should be, it was the only notable part of his life) and the earlier biographical information is merely the preamble and (for lack of a better word) introduction to the notable event. Although WP:BLP1E does not apply, WP:BIO1E clearly does. This person's life is non-notable and would not survive an AfD, only the event is notable and hence the article should be named for the event. Jenks24 (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:BIO1E/WP:VICTIM. The article is still predominantly about the death of Gale and the bio sections are suspect (see WP:VICTIM: "Be cognizant of issues of weight [i.e., avoid creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies...]"). —  AjaxSmack  17:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At the time of initial request, the article was more biographical in form; it has since been edited by some who are in favor of the "event" treatment. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Someone should close this request which has clearly failed to gain any consensus. It has been open for more than a month now.Griswaldo (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree it needs to be closed (requested moves are only meant to go for a week), but the problem is that WP:RM is heavily backlogged. Leaving neutrally-worded requested at the administrator's noticeboard would probably be your best chance to get this closed sometime in the near future. Jenks24 (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Thanks for the advice.Griswaldo (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.