Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl McCunn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carl McCunn

Carl McCunn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. He only received press coverage for suicide. Adamfinmo (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Unintentional fatal self-abandonment seems to be the correct characterization, and his story has been told in Krakauer's Into the Wild (itself originally partly published in

Outside) and in Danger Stalks the Land: Alaskan Tales of Death and Survival, as well as apparent reference in Modern Mummies. Seems to be a well-known cautionary tale, in other words. --Dhartung | Talk 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I am changing my vote. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - only notable for one event. Somno (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a memorial site. There is no indication that his death is influential or active in the wider culture. His death is a fact mentioned by Krakauer because of the context of McCandless's death; it's an anecdote. It's sad, but it's not encyclopedic. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment So it is notable enough for an article in the NY Times and a very popular book (Into the Wild) but isn't good enough for Wikipedia? vlado4 (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as an interesting story of unintentional suicide that was documented both in newspapers and in a book. The mere fact that the story is interesting enough to be referred to in a book makes it notable, IMO.--Berig (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep came across this article via stumbleupon, well worth keeping. 00:01 16 April 2008(UTC)
  • Keep The story of this man is fascinating. Surely if it was covered by a top newspaper such as the New York Times, it is worthy of a wikipedia article. The arguments that it is a memorial are mute, the article is not. It simply tells what happened to this person. If you are going to nominate this article for deletion, go ahead and nominate the Chris McCandless article as well. What is the difference between the two? Both are interesting stories of people who died in the wilderness. One simply has more coverage than the other. If you are going to delete anything, start with the millions of articles on fictional universes. Surely, the season 5 episode 4 of Star Trek is less encyclopedic than this.vlado4 (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok, according to WP:WAX if this article is suitable for deletion so is the Chris McCandless stuff. Do you agree? If his story is a legitimate article, I don't see why this one isn't. Perhaps this one has not been researched to a similar depth, but Krakauer himself put it in Into the Wild because it is analogous.vlado4 (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment No I don't agree. Did you read this part "...So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist...? I agree with this statement.--Adam in MO Talk 04:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I suppose you are right. All of this is extremely subjective though. Have not participated in one of these debates before and it is interesting to see the immense amount of bureaucracy behind wikipedia. I imagine it is through situations such as this that contributers are turned off from wiki. You work on an article and then one day someone comes and deletes it. Anyway, I've cast my vote, if the wikipedia page is deleted, at least I will have the NYT account of this fascinating story. vlado4 (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep First of all, has anyone tried looking for his career as a photographer? Second, even things like this if they are really widely enough reported can be notable. That it was in the NYT implies that it was, for they do not normally cover this sort of thing. I trust their judgment more than ours. DGG (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If this is nominated for deletion a lot of other articles really should be as well. I totally agree with the opinions of vlado4. Grapetonix (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Response Yes, a lot of other articles will be. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepThere are many anecdotal articles on Wikipedia. Does not justify deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.105.126 (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Wiki policy seems pretty clear that this bio is a no no. But is the info usable? Does his death meet notability requirements? If so, a wikipage could be created detailing the event, and this page after deletion could redirect. I'm going to go research WP notability policy for events be back soon. Bigmacd24 (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Change Name A bit of research, not much found, decided policy is best as a guideline only anyway. More or less, I agree with the concept that a person who's sole notability for an article is an event is probably a bad candidate for an article. What the notable thing here is really his death. So why not have an article on that instead? I propose we rename this page to the Death of Carl McCunn, (someone should probably look up if there is a standard way of naming these articles) and then have this page redirect. This keeps all the info, cuts down on space which can be filled with non-notable info. Bigmacd24 (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia (not "wiki", OK?) guidelines (not policy, OK?) are fairly clear that a topic must have significant coverage in multiple sources. I don't know of any policy or guideline that says this article is a "no no". We don't really have a separate policy for events. There is a feeling by some editors that to renaming articles a la "Event involving Joe Smith" is important, but there is really no difference in the manual of style nor policies and guidelines in how those articles should be written, so I personally don't see the point of a rename except in limited cases where the title is actually a problem (e.g. encouraging that a crime victim needs her high school awards detailed). --Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, notable, interesting. No apparent reason to delete. — Werdna talk 08:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • ResponsePlease explain how Mr. McCunn is notable. He achieved no fame or notable goals in his lifetime (the article never states what he actually did for a living), and he is recalled today solely for the peculiar and tragic manner in which he died. Compare this to Richard Sumner, whose biography is also the subject of an article deletion debate over notability.Ecoleetage (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the exact definition of notability according to Wikipedia?? Do please explain. From what I can tell it is a fairly fluid notion with no clear-cut boundaries. I would argue someone who has had a chapter in a famous book devoted to them and an article in the NY Times, is somewhat notable, but that is just me.vlado4 (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment At the very best this article should be merged into the article for Into the wild. FYI check out WP:N, it is a great resource. I think you will find it useful--Adam in MO Talk 05:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Vlado4, this is the definition of notability. The primary notability criterion is significant coverage by multiple sources. We are not judging someone's accomplishments or guessing at how important they are. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Werdna and Vlado4. Ezratrumpet (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I sincerely hope the Admin who rules on this will check out a very similar debate that just concluded with a delete vote: [[1]] Ecoleetage (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And to avoid a subjective decision, I hope the admin is aware that McCunn's story is in three books -- three books more than Sumner. --Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The story of McCunn's death (not his life) is briefly cited in three books. There is no book devoted exclusively to his life, let alone his death. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course, that is not what I said, nor is having a book devoted exclusively to one's life a criterion in WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT#NEWS covers this one. Subject is "notable" only because of his method of death. Merge with List of unusual deaths if it's to be kept at all. One stated reference is sufficient for the part to be merged, but for the article to stand on its own, it must cite multiple references per WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N. Don't state the sources here - put them into the article itself. B.Wind (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The article would actually be deleted from the List of unusual deaths entry if it is dropped from Wikipedia. That happened to Richard Sumner. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
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.