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. John254 00:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Whitrick[edit]

Kevin Whitrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Considerably less notable than other people we don't have articles on, such as Corey Delaney. Fails WP:BIO1E, quite simply. Setting a record for being the first person in a certain country to commit suicide on webcam (there's no need for Anglocentricism - he wouldn't be less notable if he was the first person in Kazakhstan or Bolivia to have killed himself live on webcam) is not a real claim to notability. Meets verifiability, but ultimately it's more of a news story than an encyclopedic topic. Lulzislife (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and possibly rename). Technically, this is indeed a BLP1E case. The key question is if his suicide is notable. If yes, there deserves to be an article on the topic. The content of this article is almost entirely about the suicide already. The title could be moved to something like Internet suicide of Kevin Whitrick, but I am not sure how much sense there is in a such a move. On the main question of whether the suicide is notable, I would have to say that the answer is yes, based on the coverage it received. There was quite a bit of national coverage, and not just around the time the event occurred but months later as well. E.g. there were stories about the fact that the police decided not to prosecute anyone, e.g. [1][2][3] (May 2007), then about the verdict in the inquest [4][5][6] (September 2007). There was also international coverage, e.g. [7][8][9], etc. There is also some evidence of the effect of the story beyond the coverage of the case itself, e.g. a mention in this January 2008 article [10]. GoogleNews gives a total of 31 hits for "Kevin Whitrick"[11] and 4 hits for "Kevin Neil Whitrick"[12]. I would say that the suicide passes WP:N, so the article deserves to be kept, although possibly under a different name. Nsk92 (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I fully agree with Nsk92's excellent argument above, he may be notable for only one event but that one event was quite possibly the first of its kind. WP:BLP1E says If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event but many of the news sources provide a background of Kevin's life, family, and events in his life that would have warranted his death, enough information to write a moderately good biography on him. I would say that, because of what I have discussed above, the article is notable.  Atyndall93 | talk  03:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the comments made above thus far, I don't think there is any question regarding the notability of this subject. JBsupreme (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the case that gets cited pretty much every time internet suicide is discussed these days. I'm amenable to the name change if people think it's needed, but I do think the article needs to stay. It's clearly notable, I agree with Nsk92 and Atyndall. Eve Hall (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A notable person, even if for one unfortunate event. Very sad, but also very real and reliable sources showing notability exist.  Frank  |  talk  14:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Everything looks in order here. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Nsk92 and Atyndall. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - per WP:ONEEVENT. It's marginal, at that. On a personal note, I can't help thinking of his family and that WP is the first GHit we get for his name. Possibly move to a page indicating the event, rather than the person - Alison ^❤ 10:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a per above comments --The High Commander (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Very notable, it is the first case like that in britain.Even if it is one event, this is valuble information. Islaammaged126 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficiently cited as a web phenomenon, will unfortunately be of sufficient lasting importance. DGG (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (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.