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 redirect to Marvin Schur. MBisanz talk 10:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Marvin Schur[edit]

Death of Marvin Schur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Comment I notice that someone has already edited out mention of the incident in the article about Bay City, Michigan, noting that it's "not a notable event in the overall history of the city" [1], or at least not one of the prouder moments for a crappy little burg. However, I can't say keep because I don't think his death would have made national news if he hadn't had a large amount of cash. Interestingly enough, we have an entire category for Category:Deaths from hypothermia but no corresponding article. If the Michigan legislature later enacts a "Marvin's Law" from this, there's the potential for an article down the road. For now, however, it's sad news. Mandsford (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WWGB, Your summary misrepresents the circumstances surrounding Marvin Schur's demise and subsequent series of events.
Mr. Mandsford, "I can't say keep because I don't think his death would have made national news if he hadn't had a large amount of cash..." It was not revealed to the public and after the creation of a Wikipedia entry that Marvin Schur had a sizeable estate and only after his death had already gained global media attention. The story broke after a city government and wholly-owned municipal power company acted with such neglect and disregard for one of its residents that it resulted in their death. It was that story that brought to light Marvin Schur's life of service and further solidified his character has being noteworthy with the bequest of his estate to the regional medical center. Further, the state government and legislature are undertaking action with respect to this event.
Smerdis of Tlön, "An otherwise unremarkable fellow famous only for his manner of death, receiving some minor human-interest story coverage." Marvin Schur did not receive minor human-interest story coverage. He received global media coverage due to the involvement of his local government's culpability in his death. And to characterise Marvin Schur as an unremarkable individual is disrespectful and ignores his life of service in both to his country and his community.
ThemFromSpace, I believe that your application of Wikipedia's WP:NOT#NEWS policy is not appropriate for this argument. I quote, "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. 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..." Marvin Schur's death and the events surround it were hardly routine news nor was it tabloid journalism. And yes, the event was notable and Marvin Schur was the central figure of the story. Articles have not been created about other individuals central to the story such as the mayor, city manager or power employees involved because their notoriety are all incidental to that of Marvin Schur. Additionally, the story of Marvin Schur's death extended past his demise from hypothermia and into stories of criminal investigation, political action, public discourse and acts of charity just to name a few.
Precedent does exist on Wikipedia for individuals either solely or partially notable for their method of death; such as, convicted murderer John Albert Taylor who was executed by the state of Utah by firing squad (yes, and I know that there is a Wikipedia policy that provides guidance for criminals).
Precedent does exist for an individual solely famous for one even such as Jessica McClure who as an 18 month old child fell into a Texas well and was rescued after much media attention.
I could go on. But Wikipedia's policy on deletion, of articles about "People notable only for one event", Wikipedia:Notability (people), as cited in other user's arguments is clear and goes further as to illustrate the circumstances surrounding the appropriate deletion of a biography of a person of only minor notoriety such as the camera operator of the Rodney King beating, George Holliday. Marvin Schur's death and the obvious role he played in the story, is hardly minor or insignificant to the story and the fact that the events surrounding his death led to multiple, multiple news accounts cannot be ignored. Also, the fact that the article on Marvin Schur has received so much attention and debate within the Wikipedia community and among users on its relevance within the Wikipedia project because of the very nature of the media attention and notoriety only further supports its continued existence; not to mention that Marvin Schur's Wikipedia entry received mention in national media coverage itself.
Finally, though I do agree that the article, "Death of Marvin Schur" may be deleted, there is significant enough information to support an entry on Marvin Schur within the Wikipedia project. And though there may be a general consensus built that the "Death of Marvin Schur" may be deleted I direct your attention to the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators policy under Deciding whether to delete, number 3: "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it" and number 4: "When in doubt, don't delete." I will allow someone else to raise doubt as to whether or not the article "Death of Marvin Schur" should be saved.
The alternative I recommend is a single Wikipedia entry on Marvin Schur. If the article itself somehow displeases you, help edit and clean it up. Do some independent research and contribute constructively to it to make it better. Don't just snipe and try to tear down the work of others solely because it displeases you.
I've enjoyed our debate. Best wishes, --A. Poinçot (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate your frustration. Everything gets published on Wikipedia, but not everything gets to stay on Wikipedia. Nobody has anything against Mr. Schur, who was a medic in World War II. People simply disagree as to whether this tragic incident merits its own article. Mandsford (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: APoincot (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. 220.253.70.221 (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. You're right, that second "keep" could have caused some confusion. I have retitled it as a "note" to help clarify my position. Thanks. --A. Poinçot (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: I have moved this section from the top of the page and reformatted the title as it was fouling up the day's listing. Please follow convention and place your comment at the foot of the page - they will be read. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the Record[edit]

On 15 February 2009, WWGB create the article entitled, "Death of Marvin Schur" and then copied and pasted the work produced by me from the original Marvin Schur page into their article and redirected the Marvin Schur page to their article citing, "moved Marvin Schur to Death of Marvin Schur: Article about circumstances of his death, not the individual, who does not meet notability guidelines." On 16 March 2009 WWGB started a deletion discussion regarding the very article they were responsible for creating via the taking of another's work, retitling it as a news story then trying to justify deleting it because it was being presented as a news story.

WWGB's remarks follow in the deletion discussion.

The generation log for the Death of Marvin Schur article may be found here: Death of Marvin Schur Article Creation

In my opinion, this appears to me to be a concerted effort by WWGB to redirect then misinform the Wikipedia community regarding the rational and justification for the deletion the Marvin Schur content from Wikipedia.

Of course, I could be wrong, assuming WWGB acted in good faith in redirecting the Marvin Schur page for one reason then in good faith forgot why they did it and is now trying to justify deleting it for another reason all together. Of course, that's assuming a measure of good faith, which I do. People make mistakes.

--A. Poinçot (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWGB wrote in the history remarks, "I am removing your slanderous inappropriate comments from this page. Report me if you wish, but I will not tolerate this."

WWGB wrote in the history remarks, "Keep going and we will both be suspended, but I will not tolerate your inappropriate allegations."

Repeatedly deleting this won't make it go away, pesky undo button. Respond to the allegations. Don't sweat it. We're all assuming good faith here; even me. --A. Poinçot (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to tolerate my statements, I'm asking you to respond to them for the benefit of this debate and the Wikipedia community. Deleting this has no benefit. --A. Poinçot (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Moved article to more appropriate title using WP:REDIRECT.
  2. Did not "cut and paste" or "hijack" anything or "misinform" anyone and resent insinuations.
  3. Waited one month for article to improve. It didn't.
  4. Nominated article for deletion in accordance with established practice.
  5. Having this debate on this page is inappopriate, but your accusations leave me no choice. WWGB (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting a month for an article to clean itself up isn't doing anybody no good. Why don't you help by making it better instead of trying to delete another person's work. I say keep it. I don't know, this all seems kind of slim shady to me. --Simpotico (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now WWGB, lets be honest about this, "Waited one month for article to improve. It didn't." The article history log speaks for itself. I was in the process of editing the article at the very moments that you decided to start a debate on deletion. I have no doubt that you saw, via your watch list, that someone was attempting to edit and clean up this article. So, assuming good faith, you decided to undo some of the edits and recommend the article for deletion because in your words you, "Waited one month for article to improve. It didn't" even though it was.

The established practice for deletion is spelled out in the applicable Wikipedia policies, each of which are referred to and citied in my argument. Just saying that there is a policy that may justify deletion because in your opinion it does not raise to the level of worthiness to be included in the Wikipedia project does not speak to the intent or content of said policy.

And again, assuming good faith, if your argument for deletion was not an attempt to misinform; then it was and is at best, inconsistent and that, my friend, raises doubt about motive. V/R --A. Poinçot (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2009 (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.
More