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 delete. Despite the "keep" opinions, the general consensus here is that this doesn't need its own article, although there is no consensus on what, precisely, to do with it—delete, merge, delete and redirect, or just redirect). I'm going to delete it and create a redirect to Christina Grimmie#Death. If anyone wants any of the content to merge to Grimmie's article, leave a note on my talk page, and I'll userfy the article for them to work with. (Note that any material merged will have to be credited to its original authors.) Deor (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Christina Grimmie[edit]

Death of Christina Grimmie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Although I did like Grimmie, her death does not warrant a separate article. Any or all of this information can be merged into the Christina Grimmie#Death section. Natg 19 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Christina Grimmie. As the only casualty, her article's "Death" section is sufficient to contain the relevant information. At the moment this said section is relatively small. If it grew to such large proportions as to warrant a separate article, maybe we could reconsider. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Christina Grimmie—and the death section that's there now, while brief, contains pretty much everything encyclopedic, as opposed to this "article" that reads like a news piece, trying to stuff in everything possible. 🖖ATS / Talk 23:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Christina Grimmie per all above. RIP Christina. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) I am torn here. I created this redirect because it is a likely search term. I think this article may be kept per WP:SIZESPLIT. It can even be argued that Grimmie gained more notability through her death than her music. SSTflyer 23:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can even be argued that Grimmie gained more notability through her death than her music. – the main Christina Grimmie article is about her life, not her music career exclusively. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Montanabw. SSTflyer 02:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 23:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 23:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 23:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge, but not delete. This article is long enough and can be a separate article. Otherwise, it can be merged into the main article Christina Grimmie and should not be deleted. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect/merge.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This persons death is not significant. And the majority of the article is reactionary/aftermath ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this person herself is significant. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, since she's apparently significant, it can go in the death section of her already existing article. Waerloeg (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect, or Merge to Christina Grimmie#Death. I liked Christina Grimmie too, but this article has tons of reactions that just aren't notable, especially considering that she herself is notable enough. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Merge as per Epicgenius - the majority of significant text in this article is already reflected under Christina Grimmie#Death, the remaining points of notability should be integrated into that while the wealth of relatively non-notable reactions should be carefully reconsidered for relevance. Benjitheijneb (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agreed that the article is long enough that a deletion or merger is not required Cased95 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Christina Grimmie#Death. Unlike the Orlando massacre–Omar Mateen fork, this article isn't substantial enough enough to stand on its own. Jujutsuan (Please notify with ((re)) | talk | contribs) 05:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Or at the very least, merge with Christina Grimmie#Death. Wjfox2005 (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability demonstrated by sources. Everyking (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. Per WP:NOTNEWS. There is nothing to merge either; as ATS said above, Christina Grimmie#Death already contains what's necessary for an encyclopedia. -- ChamithN (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think there's more than enough info to justify a separate article. StewdioMACK (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There will never be enough to say about it that can't be said in her own article. These should be reserved for things involving trials or mysteries. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the woman was as notable as Selena and the death section reached the degree of content to match Murder_of_Selena then maybe it would warrant its own page. But as it stands this is three short paragraphs about the death of a minor celebrity followed by a lot of "we're sorry she's dead" messages and duplicates of "Selena Gomez cancelled her meet and greets". Waerloeg (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is nothing here that cannot be covered adequately in the main article Christina Grimmie. WWGB (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge whatever unique and relevant info is in this article into the Christina Grimmie article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the information into the article. This should only be a separate article IF the relevant information becomes too large to be a section in the main article. I'm not sure if that is the case for now. So keep expanding and then split off in the future if needed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Tragic death, but still does not warrant own page. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 12:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to say Keep. As far as I can see, this person is notable for more than being dead, but the circumstances of her death are such that to merge the content with the main article would skew that article completely. I therefore feel that it should be kept separate at least for the time being.Deb (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I already !voted to merge, but based on the dubious "Keep" !votes above, it seems that Grimmie's death has only got coverage because she was a celebrity. It isn't particularly outstanding. Someone killed a celebrity, it made news for a day, and that's it. Nothing on the scale of Death of Michael Jackson or Death of John Lennon. Long-term notability is not even demonstrated here. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone recommending merge, forgive me a short note: as I and several others here have pointed out, there is nothing to merge. Christina Grimmie#Death is pertinent, fully comprehensive, and up-to-date. 🖖ATS / Talk 03:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the 'death' section on her main article is already sufficient and well written. A lot of the information in this separate article isn't necessary and bordering on fancruft. Spiderone 17:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Christina Grimmie#Death. The section on her death in the main article is good enough. Does not need a standalone article. —MRD2014 T C 17:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of good sourcing, a case that has received international attention and will most likely not end reports for quite a while. I see no reason for deletion at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Very tragic event, but not notable enough for a spin-off article. Most of the reaction seems to be quotes from various outlets of social media and its users. If this death lead to a change in the law, or some other significant shift in thinking, then we could think again. This is Paul (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect - Again, another tragic event, but not notable for a spin-off article. It should be noted in the original Christina's article that her death was in noway related to the mass shooting in Orlando the day after Christina's death. Dinkytown talk 18:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with your final point: over time, no one will remember that two completely unrelated events occured about 27 hours and four miles apart. IMO, this doesn't even merit a "See also". 🖖ATS / Talk 20:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as there's no evidence that her death was one of those random WP:1E things. The 24-hour news cycle turned it into a flurry of articles but that in itself does not make an event notable in the long run. It also seems unlikely the article will expand as the facts other than a motive are known and there's no evidence that this incident will directly result in legislation about gun control or event security that cite Christina Grimmie in their titles. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, beyond what's already in her article? 🖖ATS / Talk 20:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Christina Grimmie#Death. WHENSPLIT says that articles should only be split due to article size or scope. Grimmie's main article has only 10 KB of readable prose size; SIZESPLIT says that articles under 40 KB should not be split solely on the basis of size. (Not sure why several of the "keep" !voters have said it's "long enough.") This topic falls under the scope of Grimmie's biography and the content can easily be managed without lending a disproportionate amount of weight to the fallout after her death. There's just no reason for this. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not an online memorial per her 'Reaction' section and that has some misc information. Her death doesn't warrant a separate article, it was just fine on her main article. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 21:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - If this article cannot be kept, it should DEFINITELY be merged, as this may be the start of changes for live music shows. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you overestimate our importance ... 🖖ATS / Talk 01:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - @ATS:, honestly, no matter what happens, I believe that, at a minimum, that the history of the article should be kept in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If similar discussions I've seen previously are any indication, that history is kept, but is visible to and recoverable by sysops only. Maybe someone can chime in here to confirm ... 🖖ATS / Talk 20:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect per nom. The main article about her is not so long that her death needs to be spun out as a standalone article in its own right — if we couldn't even establish a consensus that Prince actually needed a standalone article about his death as a separate topic from his life, then I sure can't justify one for Christina Grimmie. Bearcat (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect per above. This is a tragic affair and while there are many news articles about this, it's way too premature to say that the coverage is in-depth enough to show that it would merit an article akin to that of Death of John Lennon or Death of Michael Jackson. Maybe at some point in the future there might be enough coverage, but offhand this is the type of thing that could be summarized in her article. I also have to echo Bearcat's statement - Prince's death received at least 4-5 times more coverage and it was still too soon for his death to have an article, so it's absolutely too soon for Grimmie's death to have an article. I have to admit that I'm somewhat doubtful that her death will ultimately warrant an article considering how difficult it is to establish an individual's death as independently notable of the person, especially when the person in question isn't at that rare level of notability where future coverage is all but assured. If this tragic death does end up being the start of drastic changes to live music or in other avenues, this can always be recreated but for now (and likely for at least a few years in the future) this is just WP:TOOSOON. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect This page can be a section of victims page. MordeKyle (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Christina Grimmie. As this page consists mostly of reactions, it is incredibly unapt to keep this page as is. Descriptions of her untimely demise can be included into the main article; glorified memorial pages do not really belong on Wikipedia, much less in article space. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 03:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As others such as Tokyogirl79 have stated above, it is too soon to say that this has the level of coverage necessary to warrant independent notability. I do not think a redirect is necessary, as simply typing Grimmie's name is the quicker and more likely search method. The main biography already has the pertinent contents of this article, so a merge doesn't seem necessary either. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect The info belongs with her article, not separate. The article regarding her death is likely not going to further grow encyclopedically beyond where it is at now, and most pertinent info is already in her main article. RIP, Christina. 207.243.3.211 (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Tokyo and Chase above. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is well written and sourced. There is absolutely no reasonable reason to merge or delete this article Full House Fan (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - As the details surrounding her killer and her death continue to emerge, this page becomes less reactionary and more focused on her murder. Also, it can be argued that she unfortunately achieved far more notoriety due to her death than in her life, and due to her murder being such a sensationalized topic in conjunction to the horrific events that occured in Orlando that weekend, I believe that her murder warrants a separate article. Also, as the case continues to unfold there is the possibility that her death would dwarf all other information on her main article. If at least it cannot be a standalone article, pertinent information that is not currently present on the Christina Grimmie#Death section should be merged. 69.199.56.75 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not every death deserves a standalone article; this is not one of them. Extensive media coverage, which is to be expected, does not yet make this a special death. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Christina Grimmie: Preferably the death section on her article, but otherwise as per users supporting the Delete option. Tibbydibby (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Major news event that had almost as much recognition as the worst gun massacre in US history. It's much too large for the body of the Christina Grimmie article to contain all these facts therein, and the person was already notable before their death. If the articles were merged, it would supplant the article on her life. No explanation for why we 'need' an article on the murder of Selena when we could just unload the pages of information on that article into the one on her life. Only one person was killed in that incident, after all. I will never understand the desire for less sources, less information, and less knowledge on Wikipedia. This article violates none of our principles, and neither has a single criteria for deletion been given by any of the delete votes above. The best they've done is the value judgement 'I don't think it's needed', and calling it (or the Omar Mateen article) a 'fork' stands in stark contrast to what a content fork actually is. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - This article is an important piece for gun violence in USA. But as suggested above, I fear an article of her death might overshadow the main Christina Grimmie article. Rohit neonerd (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. You can't keep an article on the basis that it "is important to gun violence in America" or "will be over shadowed" because people checking this in the future days, week and months will point out other cases much worse than this that didn't even bother having a debate on a separate Death page. DJBay123 (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's worth noting that since the murder occurred in such a close time frame of the Pulse shooting, it's actually being used to advocate changes in gun ownership in the US. It may be too early to tell how far that advocation may go or how big of a part her murder will play in comparison to the Pulse shootings, but it's undeniable that her murder did contribute to a change in how the US perceives the current state of gun laws. 2606:6000:E789:7300:573:E1EF:CF76:396 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be more accurate, it has contributed to a demonstrable change not in how the US perceives gun laws, but rather in how artists and venues approach security—and that's in her own article already. 🖖ATS / Talk 22:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But does that include Senator Murphy's 15 hour long filibuster on Wednesday? That's been attributed to both Grimmie's murder and the Pulse massacre.2606:6000:E789:7300:10A8:AACE:D9D5:CEF7 (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:E789:7300:10A8:AACE:D9D5:CEF7 (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's already in her personal article is irrelevant. This is a well documented, notable incident, Which as of this moment is still being covered, and at the hour checked had 13 new articles published. In the past 24 hours there's been 825 articles published, also according to Bing. It's not a 'one day and forgotten incident'. See my example in the comment below. Per the same line of thinking, the original characters in the Lord of the Rings movies are already mentioned in the section "Reactions to changes in the films from the books" of The Lord of the Rings (film series). To quote WP:CFork, "as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a poor example; literally every news "article" that comes up in your linked search is something that's already run and is being spread by exponentially more obscure "sources". Literally everything pertinent is in Grimmie's article now, and most of it was lifted verbatim from an older version to create Death of, which is entirely filler from there (known in journalism as a "puff piece"). Entirely. This is the relevant issue, and is the only thing that is relevant—and why D&R is the only option. 🖖ATS / Talk 01:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect Not deleting will keep the history of the page, and all the information can be summed up and expanded in the main article.Gatemansgc (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge: The main article is long enough that this spinoff is appropriate, otherwise it will overwhelm her biography with WP:UNDUE weight on her death. Plenty of source material, appropriate to cover the murder of a public figure, regardless of proximity in time or assorted political issues. Montanabw^(talk) 07:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Here's an article that's separate from it's main article and contains about as much text as Death of Christina Grimmie: List of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film series. I propose this doesn't need to be a separate article. Please explain why we should not merge it with Lord of the Rings or The Lord of the Rings (film series). After all, it could be summarized in a primary article as 'there were about a dozen characters original to the films'. The death of Christina Grimmie, though, has already made an impact on society in the United States. Lurtz has not. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFF is a start. We consider each article on its individual merits. If you think those articles should be AFDd, you are free to do so. --Izno (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewsal16 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirect or merge is unnecessary--its already covered in the main article, and what anyone would be searching for would be her name. The relevant policies are both NOT TABLOID aand NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no need to redirect this and there's nothing significant to merge. The death section on her page covers all of the relevant and encyclopedic information. I'm not sure she was at a point in her career to compare this to Death of John Lennon. ERK ^talk 08:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments, worthy of its own page due to the milestones she's reached in her musical career. MikeM2011 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This should be covered on her page. My best suggestions would be to merge this information into her page. MordeKyle (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The artist was very significant during her time alive and her death was a major event in entertainment. It is also beginning to cause many venues to implement change in the way they carry out events in the future. That there gives her death significance within itself. The article is too lengthy and provides adequate enough deatails to remain a seperate article as opposed to just "merging" it into the death section of her main article. User:TheMann1989 (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim and merge. Doesn't need this much detail, but it isn't necessary to throw it all out. Mannanan51 (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2016 (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.