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 Bill Cosby. Numerically speaking this is not the majority opinion but policy based arguments favor this outcome. If anyone wants to merge any of the deleted information I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 16:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ennis Cosby

[edit]

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

Falls into categories of WP:INHERITED and WP:1E. As the article states, "Cosby remained a private figure". Content could be redirected to an article about the case itself, but as a standalone article on the son of Bill Cosby being shot and killed, where's the actual notability aside from the one incident? I maintain this article on the individual as an article subject fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is a joke right?. Does not fail WP:GNG, or WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a joke at all. Before he was killed and the media made a big deal about the death of Bill Cosby's son, no one had heard of Ennis Cosby. In fact, since the murder and trial, no one hears about him any longer. Both facts cause this article to fall under wp:inherited and wp:1e. Not enough to establish notability. Again, fails GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep when coverage of a crime is sufficiently intense, global, and/or prolonged, the crime passes WP:GNG. Such deaths are usually entitled Death of... or Murder of... rather than, as here, with the victim's name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Such deaths are usually entitled Death of... or Murder of... rather than, as here, with the victim's name" It then seems to me that the article needs to be rewritten, refocused on the murder of Cosby rather than on the individual who was not notable, but perhaps his death was. Speedy keep seems out of place in light of your comments, E.M.Gregory. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It speedily and obviously passes notability. Other discussions belong elsewhere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bill Cosby per WP:BIOFAMILY, which states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Notability is not inherited and Ennis isn't notable on his own without family affiliations, though is viable search term. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with SNUGGUMS. And, apparently since this solution was offered, "Other discussions [don't] belong elsewhere". :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This well-sourced article about the notorious and widely publicized murder of the son of celebrity Bill Cosby was proposed for AFD as part of a batch of deletions in which recently created articles about each of the 4 other Cosby children were nominated for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This well-sourced article about the notorious and widely publicized murder of the son of celebrity Bill Cosby" That's where you're wrong, E.M.Gregory. The article isn't about the murder, it's about the son (otherwise the article would be titled "The murder of Ennis Cosby"). If the article were only about the murder, it might be an article to keep. As it is, the article is about the individual murdered, someone who is "notable" only per WP:INHERITED and the murder (WP:1E). Neither is enough to keep this article as is, an article on an individual who is only known because of who is father is and for one event. Neither is enough of a reason to keep this article written as is and focused on the non-notable individual. I agree with SNUGGUMS, it should be redirected to the Bill Cosby article and a section on the murder of Ennis Cosby created (or updated, if such a section already exists). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree, then, on Keep and move to Murder of Ennis Crosby? The murder was an enduring focus of national attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory: No. As I said above, "it might be an article to keep". Other than the fact the victim was Bill Cosby's son, I don't think even the incident was particularly notable. People get killed daily in the manner Ennis Cosby did in L.A. and cities like it with high murder/crime rates. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:09, 10 March 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.