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.  Sandstein  07:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy[edit]

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable 2 day old son of President JFK. Just because JFK is notable, that doesn't make Patrick notable. He can easily be merged to Kennedy family. CTJF83 chat 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Child of one of the most notable Presidents in US history. Article asserts importance of his death in promoting awareness of disease. That element in particular would probably make a poor fit in Kennedy family. - BalthCat (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, being the child of anyone doesn't in itself make him notable. CTJF83 chat 19:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were that only the truth. Besides, there are more than 30 google news results for August 1963, and my comment regarding the public impact regarding awareness of the disease stands. - BalthCat (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have a problem with the disease awareness reason.... CTJF83 chat 19:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He received massive press coverage at the time, and was mentioned by his father, the President, in speeches. That is notability. Qworty (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with above. Also see: [1]. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woah Woah Woah reading your AFD again, are you calling JFK a non-notable president? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 04:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misread my reason, but to avoid others misreading, I reworded it CTJF83 chat 07:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge To Kennedy family. Notability is not inherited, and talking about someone doesn't necessarily make him notable, as per WP:N or WP:BIO. His death may have sparked an increased awareness of Infant respiratory distress syndrome, but the attention given to the syndrome was generated by others -- the poor child only lived two days. Warrah (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Kennedy family. This seems very clear to me. He would have absolutely zero notability if his family weren't famous, hence the need for a merge. And not that it means anything, but I wonder if there are any other WP articles on people who lived only two days. -Jordgette (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As previously decided in a prior Articles for deletion non-vote. - Nunh-huh 23:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • uh, what? CTJF83 chat 04:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • uh, nominated for deletion in 2004 and kept. There's been no change since that time. He didn't get any younger or any less notable. Nor does the information fit appropriately into any of the other mentioned articles. - Nunh-huh 07:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 5 years later, and Wikipedia and its policies are much improved CTJF83 chat 07:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, we're much better at responding to knee-jerk reactions like "dead baby, not notable". Which is why the result is the same, despite the needless renomination. - Nunh-huh 07:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I really don't appreciate your attitude at all, so why don't you WP:AGF and be more WP:Civil CTJF83 chat 07:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the advice. Here's mine: a nominator demonstrates good faith by checking for previous nominations before nominating articles for deletion, by listing those previous nominations if renominating, and by not renominating unless he has some new point to make or some reason to believe consensus has changed. And by not defending his nomination by commenting about "improved" policies when there are no such policies that are relevant to the discussion. - Nunh-huh 07:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Here is what WP:Bio looked like when first nominated. Are you saying Bio is not improved in these 5.5 years? CTJF83 chat 08:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • What do you think has changed in "Bio" that you (now) cite it to justify renomination? When you nominated this, you made no reference to guideline changes that made renomination appropriate, because you hadn't checked for - or, at any rate, found - the previous nomination. Current notability guidelines - which focus on reliable sources rather than an individual Wikipedian's feelings about significance - are certainly satisfied by this article, just as they were satisfied during the previous nomination. If anything, the changes in "Bio" make renomination more inappropriate, not more appropriate. - Nunh-huh 08:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oh, and you're right, consensus can never change to delete from previous AFDs 1 2 3 4 5 6. CTJF83 chat 08:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • So then you didn't have any of the "bio" 'improvements' in mind? And thanks for refuting a point that I didn't make. Some articles ("GNAA", for example) need to be repeatedly nominated until good sense prevails and they are deleted. This is not one of those articles. - Nunh-huh 09:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - one of the two most notable children of US Presidents who have died while their fathers were in office. He had a huge press presence in the 1960s, per Qworty. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Monumental amounts of substantial press coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as he only lived for 2-days. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is VERY flawed. Just because one doesn't live long, doesn't mean they aren't notable. For example Prince Umberto of Savoy had a wikipedia article created for him a day after his birth. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, just because an article is created, doesn't mean the subject matter is notable or appropriate for Wikipedia (not saying either about the Prince) CTJF83 chat 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Was easily kept 5.5 years ago (unanimous keep other than nominator), and I see no basis for a change in consensus since. Received significant press coverage.--Milowent (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep: For all the reasons Nunh-huh has so eloquently mentioned above. FrostySnows (talk) 16:13, 10 November 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.