Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John-Hedley Desmond Lucy McConnell

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 of the debate was speedy delete, A7 (no assertion of notability) and G4 (recreated deleted content). —Cuiviénen 18:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John-Hedley Desmond Lucy McConnell

This page was deleted several times as a memorial page, and still keeps getting recreated and had a prod tag removed once. As a result, I'm going to take the debate here. Editor88 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non notable tour director from the sound of it, pure panegyric. Read WP:NOT. Jammo (SM247) 03:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy G4 as recreated material, inasmuch as it'd be a speedy A7 with no assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for being sad but truly non-notable. Eddie.willers 03:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Week keep. I added some references about him in various newsletters under "External links". It would be helpful if we knew the cause of death. Perhaps if some additional information can be found about him and the projects he worked on, he would be more notable. TruthbringerToronto 04:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - wikipedia is not an obituary page, not free web space, and not a place to grieve. - Richardcavell 05:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Kinu and put notice stating it should not be recreated. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, fails CSD:G4. Protect from re-creation. --Coredesat 06:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notabilty satisfying WP:BIO (brother of a band member is nn), wikipedia is not a memorial... and protect from being recreated. - Motor (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, and replace the page with {{deletedpage}} --WinHunter ^(talk) 13:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If a speedy deleted article is constantly recreated, there's no harm in it coming here for the community to remeasure the article against WP:N. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 13:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I didn't see the earlier ones, but the only memorial type aspect is the link to the memorial page, which doesn't make it a memorial to me. To me, memorial type writing is unencyclopedic, but the writing on this page does seem to be encyclopedic (at least now). The second reference seems to me to pass the test for `not original'. I think the thresholds on notability are flexible enough to include this. snug 14:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete + {{deletedpage}}, recreated content. Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 14:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep I think everybody deserve to be here! It doesn’t matter if you where a rich person, poor , black or white…If the family, friend’s or someone unknown wants to include a person here…why not include him? I’m sure he deserves it!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.75.163 (talk • contribs) (with further support from...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.155.32 (talk • contribs) )

Sadly, your opinion differs from the majority of Wikipedians'; see WP:BIO. This is an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive list of every single human being who has ever existed. There is not room to include everyone, and more to the point, that is not what Wikipedia is for. — Haeleth Talk 16:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with all condolences, but if we can't even find the cause if death this clearly runs afoul of WP:V. The creator is urged to find another outlet for this. There are many other ways to memorialize loved ones on the internet. ~ trialsanderrors 16:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Snugspout, the thresholds on notability are indeed flexible enough to keep this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.39.155.32 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-20 16:25:12 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, but this simply isn't the place. — Haeleth Talk 16:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Richardcavell. Please find another outlet for a memorial. -- Scientizzle 16:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The wikipedia archives state: "Obscure content isn't harmful, Wikipedia is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.", " "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance).", "Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion.", The article on Jay McConnell can be improved or reduced to a stub, the information provided is accurate and will be expanded over the following days, this article through error may have started out as a memorial, but it is now a valid encyclopedic addition.Tristan 18:01, 20 June 2006

Comment This vote by Tristan was added by IP 83.39.155.32 with another vote above. -- Scientizzle 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Why were just losing time about the thing? I've a lot of relatives who died, should I add a memorial for each of them here?--Attilios 17:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per failure of suject to meet WP:BIO criteria. I'd also support Speedy as G4 if this is sufficently close enough to the previous content. Regardless, it should be page protected.--Isotope23 17:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn notable reposted content, Wikipedia is not a memorial.--Dakota ~ 18:09, 20 June 2006 (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.