How can this poorly affect anyone if it stays? Just leave it be. Besides, I don't know how this Brendan could be considered non-notable. Sure, his father is famous, but what Brendan has done in his life time is brave and heroic, and I believe it's a step forward in the gay rights fight. I'm sure there are homosexuals in all sports, and if Brendan's courage encourages others to come out, then there is no way that this article can be non-notable. If nothing else though, both his coming out and death have made top headlines, so right there is your notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.238.108.222 (talk • contribs) — 141.238.108.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"There is no harm in keeping" is not a valid keep argument in an AfD debate. Nor is it Wikipedia's position to advocate for or against the gay rights issue. Ultimately, however, I would recommend that you simply relax. As it is, it is very obvious that deletion is not going to be the outcome of this debate. The question boils down to whether this story will remain in its own article, or be a part of Brian Burke's. In either case, the news that Brendan came out as a gay athlete, was supported by his father, and tragically died will all be retained. Resolute 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subtract all suspicions of prejudice, and it's probably still a bad idea to open a deletion discussion in the immediate wake of any person's death, and perhaps to allow the initial creation of a biographical article with a recent date of death, as in this case. If there isn't explicit Wikipedia policy against it, perhaps there should be.

• Coverage immediately following the person's death might contribute to (further) establishing a deceased's notability, if time were allowed for publication of the coverage (for instance, the longer lead time of monthly magazines). Otherwise, it might create an appearance that an editor/editors supporting deletion are rushing to preempt further establishment of notability.

• Further, no matter who the deceased is, proposing deletion "before the body is cold" virtually assures some parties will take offense at the timing, or misconstrue the proposed deletion as a biased act or intentional insult (for example, by a longtime rival or someone harboring a grudge, whether publicly known or entirely private). Yes, other Wikipedians may successfully oppose the proposed deletion, or the biography may "live on" in a merged article. But if insult were intended, it would have been accomplished, both by the proposal itself and by the subsequent back-and-forth over whether the recently deceased was Wikipedia-worthy enough to merit an article.

• For a pre-existing article, notability could have been challenged before the death for the same reasons it's might be challenged in the immediate wake of the death -- yet, the notability wasn't challenged before the death.

So biographies of "very, very recently" living persons should perhaps be temporarily protected from deletion by the same rationale other articles are often protected during periods of high interest, news developments or controversy. (One "out there" possibility is that conceivably, the act of someone proposing to delete a biographical article immediately after a person's death -- whose motives are subsequently challenged -- could spark news coverage that makes the person notable precisely for the unprecedented Wikipedia flame war that the proposed deletion sparked.)

Already here, we are seeing the proposed deletion "become the story," and we are also seeing that this isn't the most hospitable environment in which to rationally and more or less dispassionately discuss the proposed deletion. So again, if there isn't an explicit Wikipedia policy against creating or proposing deletion of a biographical article when someone has recently died or is known to be in ill health, perhaps there should be, and I suspect likely there will be, if not now then after some similar event in the future. Then, if an article were created and/or deletion were proposed, it could be challenged simply by citing the policy, without devolving into rancorous mayhem. Which is what Wikipedia policies are (partly) designed to avoid, right? 96.227.157.168 (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't created until after his death. -DJSasso (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you kinda took the air out of that balloon didn't ya... Beeblebrox (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Realized that even as you were typing your comments, and went to modify it. (Edit conflict!) Man, y'all were fast. Well, no take backs on Wikipedia. So edited the above to address both situations, since much of the thought may apply regardless. My two+ cents, anyway. Meanwhile, it may also help others to further emphasize the article's brief lineage on the (edit-restricted) vote page. 96.227.157.168 (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, until he announced himself as gay, I never heard about Brendan Burke. It was only given air-time 'cuz he was Brian Burke's son (and Brian Burke was seen a prime-example of male heterosexuality). To those who claime homophobia at the Afd? Why not claim it's Habs fans who're calling for deletion? It would be just a much sense. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People need to remember that why it was given attention is irrelevant. The fact that he was Burke's son was the reason he got the coverage to begin with, but once he got the coverage it is no longer relevant as he was the subject of that news coverage which now means he has his own notability and is not inheirited. Inheirited notability is someone getting a page only because the were the son of someone. Which is clearly not the case here. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sticking with 're-direct'. I'll accept a merge under Brian Burke (ice hockey), though. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would describing someone else's achievements on Brian Burke's page be appropriate? If his wife was a noted activist, should a section detailing her lone exploits be on his page?Luminum (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You talkin' about a merge. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was rhetorical questioning. I was suggesting that a merge would result in drawing focus away from Brian Burke, since the media coverage on Brendan Burke was more than just how his father was involved, or what his father thought.Luminum (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thus my preference for redirect. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can't join in on the project page, I'll just leave my two cents here. I can understand how some might have concerns regarding WP:NOTMEMORIAL, given that the article was only created after Brandan's death. However, I don't think the timing of the article creation should count against its encyclopedic validity. Also, I think the decision to nominate for deletion an article about an individual whose death, only a few days prior, had caused significant news and blog coverage (albeit predominately in the hockey world), was regretful. I can't imagine anyone wouldn't have seen the deluge of activity and the flame war that would ensue.
I would vote for keep, as I believe WP:NOTABILITY has been established. While he achieved media attention, in part, because of his father's fame, his notability arises from his action of coming out and the following public discussion both by and about him with respect to homosexuality and homophobia in professional sports. Both this and the wide coverage of his death are sufficient to warrant his own article, from my perspective.

Also, I recognize that the inconsistency of Wikipedia on one article isn't necessarily the strongest argument for supporting another, but, for example: Daniel Wayne Smith. No disrespect to the dead, but Smith's notability derives solely from a famous parent and an accidental and untimely death. There is nothing to indicate any notable actions or achievements independent of his mother (I don't think appearing in his mother's reality show counts, just as I wouldn't call Jack or Kelly Osborne notable if they hadn't established independent careers) Yet his article has survived two AfD discussions.

From my reading of the discussions so far, it would seem the majority consensus is that Brendan is notable enough to be included in WP, and the primary discussion is whether he merits a stand-alone article or should be merged/re-directed to his father's. Now, would it really be terrible for the article to be kept at the moment, with some level of protection, to prevent memorializing, with the understanding that Merge discussion will occur again later on? Providing some amount of time would allow for a less emotionally charged discussion and potentially permit a more objective examination of what, if any, lasting effect his life and actions have on the sport. And despite the recentness of the article creation, I think the notability established in the discussion, along with the recentness of his death, and the notable attention the article itself has garnered are more than enough rationale to protect the article and revisit the discussion later.--JLecru (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]