Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Vedas (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. There are arguments both that it is WP:ONEEVENT and that it has significant coverage during and after the event. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Vedas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Some guy OD'd on drugs while in a chatroom. A few papers published a story about it at the time. There's no evidence it has ever been mentioned in any reliable sources since then (early 2003). No lasting impact. This is a clear example of WP:NOTNEWS. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Cassidy for precedent; an unusual and/or embarrassing death is not enough for a biography even if it is reported in the papers. *** Crotalus *** 19:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has been discussed already: he gets mentioned from time to time in articles treating Internet culture, the number of google hits also indicates that his 'case' has notability. --Miacekand his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site; the fact that it received notable coverage at the time makes it worthy of inclusion. It doesn't have to keep getting coverage to stay listed.—Chowbok ☠ 20:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also this nomination needs to be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Vedas (third nomination) but I'm not sure if just moving it will break inclusions etc. WP:TROUT to the nominator for not taking the time to do this correctly.—Chowbok ☠ 20:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regardless of how many newspapers decided to fill space by mentioning this Darwin Award candidate, it all comes back to WP:ONEVENT. It doesn't become more notable when a non-notable person does something incredibly stupid in front of an online audience. Of course you have ghits out the ass, it was an online event, so tons of blogs and discussion boards, who aren't reliable sources, will talk about it. You can see the news spike at Google News around the event and then only passing mentions of him after that, mainly when some other nitwit does something moronic online. Cite WP:NOTNEWS too. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. I can't match Niteshift36's eloquence on the matter, but this is single event. At best, a mention in an article about the concept of online absurdities or something like that (when that becomes a notable subject) is what is required for this. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW, there was also a Los Angeles play based on the incident, with reviews in mainstream papers: see [1], [2].—Chowbok ☠ 02:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting....someone who ran out of ideas for community theater decided to write a play about this. Trivia is always interesting to me......but notable? Um, no. From the first link: "On the whole, it just plays like a room of self-centered drug-using losers who goad one of their number into destroying himself, and fail to get him help because they don't want to bring law enforcement down on themselves. The story itself is appalling, but the dramatization is no more moving than would be a newspaper article dispassionately reporting the tale.". "Self-centered drug using losers......" are not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better delete Sid Vicious, then.—Chowbok ☠ 22:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What sense would that make? He was notable for something other than WP:ONEVENT.

• Heh. Barely, he doesn't even play on the only real Sex Pistols album. Anywhoo... I would suggest a possible merge to Internet suicide, which is currently only about online suicide pacts. Hairhorn (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Strong consensus to keep in previous RfDs. Over 6 years after the fact this is still being mentioned in news articles. There are several hits on newspaper search engines for articles around the globe. Google News has articles from Spain, Vietnam, and Russia from the past year. 72.58.249.204 (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is "mentioned" (which is trivial) when someone does something stupid. How many of those articles from Vietnam etc. are simply translations of the US wire services?
• Delete, no real evidence of any coverage other than his death. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I moved Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Vedas (2nd nomination) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Vedas (3rd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Vedas (second nomination) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Vedas (2nd nomination). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:10, 17 July 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.