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. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Clark (September 11 survivor)

[edit]

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

Delete: cannot derive notability as an indiscriminate VICTIM. I am sorry but it doesn't seem fair to other survivors and fatalities of 9/11. I must be a heartless bastard I guess. NOTE: There are more AFDs in this vein coming but I don't know how to piggyback them. Sorry. Quis separabit? 22:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Just fyi, it's not usual to start an AFD by writing delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No real reason offered for deletion. Toffanin (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does it matter whether the nomination has content? If you had mentioned that there was no reason, and all the AfD votes/commentary were in favor of a keep, I'd say it'd be an easy keep decision, but since another user has replied with a reasonable rationale for the article meriting deletion, I don't see why we wouldn't entertain the AfD proposal. Upjav (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As per WP:DEL and WP:AfD, a valid reason should be provided by the nominator and clearly given in the nomination itself; consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. When a reason is not offered by a nominator, it's hard to offer valid arguments, or to engage in constructive, on-topic discussions. Just saying "doesn't seem fair to other survivors" is not a valid reason for AfD. On top of that, stating "cannot derive notability as an indiscriminate victim" is not a valid argumentation since such policy doesn't exist at all in WP:VICTIM — which is all about criminal events, hence completely unrelated to 9/11 survivors / victims. Please, provide evidences of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BIO violations, or let it go. And please, don't shift the nominator's burden of proof to the other editors, thanks. Toffanin (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not trying to fight you, Toffanin. I just figured if someone else finds enough merit in an article's deletion to contribute to the AfD discussion and vote (which I know is not a tally), they're essentially volunteering to take on the burden of proof and we could treat the nom as such. Upjav (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's rationale, unfortunately is Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, whereas the metric for passing WP:GNG is intensive, extensive, enduring coverage in reliable sources. Nom has also failed to perform WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brian Clark's experience was widely covered at the time, and it has received ongoing coverage in reliable sources since. This subject's notability is not derived from Clark's mere presence at the event, but, rather form the fact that his experience on that day has been and still is covered by major media and in books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"intensive, extensive, enduring coverage in reliable sources ... his experience on that day has been and still is covered by major media and in books" -- really, like where? Quis separabit? 21:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here: [1], Here: [2] Here: [3] Here: [4] Here: [5] and a great many more. Also in an impressive number of books, even if we only look at the mainstream books, and omit the conspiracy theory books. You do have to accompany searches on his fairly common name with keywords like "twin towers" "Al Qaeda" and "Praimnath".E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above as well as per sources - This is something that should never be deleted and should never have even been nominated, An article likes this needs improving not deleting period. –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 4 September 2015 (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.