Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trayvon Martin (2nd 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The result was withdrawn per the discussion on my talk page. This is now re-closed. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trayvon Martin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subject is only notable for a single event (see WP:1E). Their biography is otherwise run of the mill and most of this is just fluff. See also WP:VICTIM. I had originally proposed a merge to Shooting of Trayvon Martin but on closer examination I don't think there is much worth merging. If the community concludes otherwise I am OK with that. But I can't see any WP:PAG based rational for keeping this article. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shooting of Trayvon Martin is well over 200 kB, and should be split into additional articles in order to reduce its size. The article for Trayvon Martin talks about a book entitled Rest in Power: The Enduring Life of Trayvon Martin, and there is a speech from Obama about him. Shooting of Trayvon Martin should be split into articles entitled Background of the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Investigations into the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Aftermath of the Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Reactions to the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Jax 0677s rationale above. Great summation. Also per WP:GNG. The size of the propose redirect makes redirect or merge a not good alternative. Also this article has additional info. Spliting the other article into smaller articles and keeping this one on Trayvon is the best alternative.BabbaQ (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes #3 of WP:BLP1E because his role in the shooting was significant and received significant coverage. Also, as others have said, this is far too large to merge and he's obviously notable. Rather ridiculous nomination. Smartyllama (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how BLP1E #3 applies here unless you are taking such an expansive interpretation that every victim of a sensational murder would qualify for their own article. At the risk of sounding cold, his role in this event was dying. That's it. I am not seeing how the rest of his life is relevant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for sustained notability and I’m going to say this as “civil” as possible about this: piss off, you troll. Trillfendi (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption of bad faith is not needed and provide no constructive input to this discussion. I can see this AfD being made on the sake of Wikipedia's notability requirements. Look at the first AfD from 2013 where the same arguments were presented. – The Grid (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Merging is also an option per previous discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per a discussion held almost 6 years ago. Plenty have happened for this article subject to achieve more notability etc since.BabbaQ (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Yes the reasons for nomination are valid points. But, regardless of the reasons, there is the amount and types of coverage to satisfy wp:GNG. Also, coverage of the individual is useful for questions that may arise regarding the event. North8000 (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jax's reasonings; AO has been here a long time so they're certainly not a 'troll', but I just don't find the tone of the nom appropriate, nor the use of ONEEVENT (which certainly shouldn't apply to subjects like this). Nate • (chatter) 01:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nom At this point I think it is clear that there is no reasonable likelihood of any consensus developing for anything other than a keep. No point in prolonging this. I propose a speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or merge~~ This vote is actually policy-based, so, of course, ignore it. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This discussion was previously closed with the following text: The result was speedy keep. Nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the result would have been Withdrawn, not Speedy keep. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2019 (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.