Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

Added a referance and removed no sources tag. (Neostinker 19:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Requested move 1 - withdrawn

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Technical 13 (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– A discussion

WP:TITLE suggests. Technical 13 (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion about closure

Note that an editor decided unilaterally to revert this closure, made because the nominator had withdrawn it. That is not the appropriate mechanism. If the closure is disagreed with please take the discussion elsewhere.

WP:IDONTLIKEIT must not apply to closures. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I believe you are mistaken. Per Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions, only a nominator can withdraw and close an RM discussion:
However, it is fine for a discussion participant to close a requested move in the following circumstances:
...
  • If the nominator wishes to withdraw a proposal about which no one has yet commented, or which is unanimously opposed. In this case, the nominator may close the discussion as "withdrawn".
When George Ho closed the above discussion as "withdrawn"[1], that was an invalid and highly premature close, as he was not the nominator. So I reverted that close accordingly[2], with this comment. You then reverted my revert[3], apparently under the mistaken assumption that the original close by George Ho was legitimate.

I and perhaps others would like to participate in this discussion. This is precisely why only the nominator is allowed to withdraw and close. Involved editors opposed to the proposal such as you and George should most certainly not be closing it. --B2C 21:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 (second request)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: There is no consensus to support the moving of these pages. A number of policies/guidelines have been raised on both sides, particularly

WP:DEADHORSE territory). I also propose that any such discussion be held, not on a single article, but on the Village Pump or other similar place, with notifications placed on each of the article talk pages in question—this really does seem to be a more fundamental question about how we're "classifying" articles/information, and thus deserving of wide participation. Furthermore, I strongly encourage those who are seeking the change to be prepared to come to the table with new arguments, as a simple "vote count" would find in favor of the current names, which at least indicates that the arguments used here for renaming have not been persuasive. Finally, I do want everyone to understand that I believe that many of you have taken the positions you have specifically out of a sincere desire to "do right" by the deceased and/or their families; in any possible future discussion, please do remind yourselves that those opposing your position are doing it out of a strongly held belief that what they are doing is the more "respectful" or "consistent" approach, not out of any sort of intentional malice or simple adherence to a set of encyclopedic practices. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Qwyrxian (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]


– First, the only topic associated with each of these proposed titles is the topic of the respective article, as each proposed title currently redirects to that article. Hence, the "Suicide of " portion is more precision than necessary in each of the current titles, per
WP:AT.

Second, the topic of each of these articles is the person named in the proposed titles (all but one of the articles has a photo of the person and lists date of birth as well as death, etc., just like any bio). Yes, the reason each is notable is because of events associated with each respective suicide, but the fact remains that reliable sources deem the person to be notable, therefore the article topic in each is the person, not just the suicide, and the article title should reflect that.

This is no different than an article about a person made notable by one particular achievement (perhaps a book, a piece of art, a discovery or invention). Whatever it is, that one thing makes the person notable, per appropriate citations in reliable sources, and so we have an article about that person. Just because the one thing happens to be suicide (or death circumstances in general) does not justify different treatment of the article topic or title. B2C 22:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Survey
  • I did. It seems you also edited it while I was replying. So, to be clear, the articles, whether they contain biographical material or not, are not biographies. The event of their death is notable, not, unfortunately, their lives, except to those who loved them or, more unfortunately still those whose actions are alleged or deemed to have contributed to their deaths. Articles on deaths of non inherently notable people are not biographies, and their death does not make them notable. I have no intention of knocking down your points one by one. You are making a
    WP:POINT and articles on suicides of young people is a highly tasteless place to make it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • (
    WP:AT is not the guiding principle here. Notability is. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • WP:AT determines what an existing article should be titled. The latter is what is at issue here.

      Yes, there is one thing that makes them subjects for a WP biography, and that one thing is the particulars of their respective suicides, as deemed by reliable sources, or we would not have these biographical articles (and that's what they are - look at them). They're just as biographical as countless thousands of short biographical articles on WP, many of which have less biographical content about their subjects than these articles do.

      By the way, the manner of one's death occurs while one is still alive; it's something that happens in their lives, albeit at the very end. --B2C 23:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

      ]

  • By which you prove that the title you wish for is not clearly defined, and contradict yourself. An article titled Foo has to contain the life history of Foo, but Suicide of Foo carries the details of the notable suicide that ended Foo's life in an unhappy moment and the circumstances that surrounded it.It is a mistake to consider Foo to have been notable unless they were inherently notable. Since they are not then it is only their suicide that is notable, if it genuinely is notable itself. Most suicides are not at all notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Foo was not notable, then neither is their death. If their death itself makes them notable, then they are notable. Montanabw(talk) 19:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of suicides in particular, there is a great deal that led up to the suicide that is often included, and the actual suicide is just the period at the end of the sentence, most of the article is not about the suicide. But yes, I would far rather have an article titled Kelly Yeomans, and have the article explain that they committed suicide and why, instead of trying to put the whole article into the title. Apteva (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that would happen is the article you desire would be discussed for deletion as non notable, a correct outcome, or moved to Suicide of... Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support:Per my previous arguments at other articles, and at the pump it is inherently dehumanizing to title article only about someone's sensationalistic death. Either the person is notable or they are not. If it is their death that makes them notable to the wider public, they STILL deserve the dignity of an article that is simply their own name, nothing more. More is, inherently, a POV judgment on the value of the whole person and wrong. If WP:AT does not support this, then WP:AT needs to change. The only guideline/policy that is relevant is WP:NOTABILITY. After than name the article after the person. ("Foo") If the person's death is a huge deal, it may be necessary to create a SECOND spinoff article ("death of Foo"), but that should never be the only article so titled. If the concern is ONETOPIC, again, notability is the criterion; sometimes a person is VERY notable for a single thing, but we don't title articles "The one book written by Foo" For example, John Kennedy Toole stands alone, and he mostly did one notable thing (wrote a good book) and then completed suicide as well. To say one person gets a stand-alone article and another gets only a "death of Foo" article is really quite improper. Montanabw(talk) 19:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Follow up: I notice that every one of these cases is either female or alleged to be gay. THAT is a serious bias problem: are only adult white straight males notable? Montanabw(talk) 19:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

non-substantive personal attacks
  • (edit conflict)I have noticed that the people with the poorest arguments seek supporters in all the places they can. Now you propound preposterous home brewed pseudo-theories to seek to extend your weary trudge around this subject. Bullying and insulting are strong words, and rather poor rhetoric. Your wikilink is amusing. I quote from the first paragraphs: "When addressing another editor, it is normally better not to start with the phrase "With all due respect" as everybody knows it really means "Go fuck yourself". On the other hand, using the phrase can be quite handy in a case where you do wish to tell a user to go fuck themselves, but prefer not to be blocked for incivility. Using the phrase and linking it to this essay ensures maximum clarity, but may carry a degree of risk. "I intend no disrespect" can be used in the same way, though a literal interpretation is also possible." So, you have used this very carefully to pretend that you are being civil. And, amusingly, you accuse me of bullying! Well done. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies if it was already mentioned above, but, for information, this discussion has been mentioned at
    talk) 20:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • People seem to be forum shopping, rather. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I'm not trying to be offensive in anyway with this question, but how is that different from the Protected Page Editor discussion that the entire site has had to see a reminder of on the site notice all week? Isn't it better for consensus to have the opinions of a more diverse group of people? These are honest questions to which I hope to get reasonable answers and I'm not asking them to make any points, I really want to know. Technical 13 (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)‎‎[reply]
  • Oppose, for the same reasons as before. Oh, wait, the previous discussion here was closed before I had a chance to oppose it. But you can see my reasons for opposing at the Village Pump, at Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi, and probably sky-written by an airplane at the rate this forum shopping seems to be going. This repeated effort to keep reopening the discussion until the community changes our minds is getting to be very annoying. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I missed it, but I don't think I've seen anything in anything you've written on this issue that addresses the argument and reasons I raised in this particular proposal, nor the question I posted to Blueboar, above, which remains unanswered. By anyone. --B2C 15:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, perhaps you missed it, because I could probably collect what I've said by now into a book. But I'll respond in detail, doing it lower down, because I think it will be more logical to put it there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems sort of obvious to me, but I'll give it a shot. Your examples aren't comparable because the people you mentioned aren't notable for just one event—or, in some cases, for any events at all, per se. Thomas Edison is a major historical figure who did a whole lot more in his long career than just invent the phonograph. (You're not seriously suggesting that the man's article be retitled Thomas Edison's invention of the phonograph, I hope!) Helen Denerley has created multiple notable artworks and Stewart Wallace has written multiple notable operas. Draoui Mohamed's notability rests not on any event but on his service on legislative bodies. His article doesn't say, but we may presume that Hikaru Ito's notability doesn't rest on an event (a tag at the plate that decided an important game, perhaps?) but on his professional career. In contrast, the notability of each of the suicide (and murder) victims at issue here rests entirely on his or her untimely death and its aftermath. That seems to me like a really basic, clear distinction, and I'm not sure why it seems to elude some otherwise highly perceptive editors. Rivertorch (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This proposal doesn't play well with
    unduly negative weight
    . While the nominator may believe that "Fred Fine" and "Suicide of Fred Fine" are more or less the same topic, that's not my view in the case of the articles on this list I'm familiar with, nor is it the view of our notability criteria, which are quite different for people and for events. As a result, this "question of naming" is, as the nomination is, in effect, a somewhat obscured change to our notability criteria as well. While some might find that change desirable (e.g., Blueboar's blanket declaration that all these articles are non-notable, despite AfDs to the contrary), I do not.
Now, I am somewhat sympathetic to Apteva's view (and perhaps the nominators) that
Tyler Clementi, and that the former name feels a bit pointless. But I don't think we can even begin to have the debate about how important a difference that name, and the emphasis and focus it provides in an article, until we address the more vexing notability change that this "move request" obscures. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I respect your opinions and citing of
WP:POINTy, I'm truly interested to understand your position on the inconsistencies and lack of balance that this discussion is intended to level out some. Technical 13 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:BIO1E does not apply in suicides. It states: " In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. ". Do we really need to point out that "the degree of significance of the individual's role" in a suicide is overwhelming? What 1E is talking about is, for example, someone who happens to be a random victim in a bombing... that is someone whose significance in the given event (the bombing) is relatively insignificant. But the bomber in a bombing? Or the suicide victim in a notable suicide? Of course they are very significant. If such events are notable, then so are the persons, and, if we only have one article, it's generally the bio. --B2C 16:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Born2cycle: My memory is that most of these suicides are usually read at AfD as "major role in a minor event", e.g., "it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident." I think in one or two of these cases "minor event" is pretty debatable. If you dig through the history of the Clementi article, for example, you'll see BIO1E invoked, e.g., the nominator here noted previous deletions under BIO1E.
Establishing the notability/significance/importance of a recent event under event guidelines is challengingly subjective, e.g., the second paragraph of my closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_of_Casey-Lyanne_Kearney. That's unavoidable, I think, the nature of the beast.
Technical13: I'm not personally convinced that, in isolation, the titles for Ted Kaczynski (or Tyler Clementi), taken in isolation, are that big a deal either way. One place where I seem to occasionally differ from the community as a whole is that I often feel we disproportionally weigh Wikipedia's influence on a situation when a topic, or a piece of information, is already in broad public view. Certainly very little we say about Ted Kaczynski is going to greatly damage or assist his public reputation at this point, certainly that's the case (in my view) when we're talking about questions such as which of those two titles we use. Any issues arising only from "how we render the title" (rather than the notability side-effects) for me, primarily affect minor, but still notable events. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In RM discussions notability is presumed - otherwise we should be having an AfD discussion instead. Presuming notability justifies article existence, but not two articles, then the only question is whether to name the article about the person or the event ("Suicide of ..."). If in suicide cases we decide to name the article after the event, that's treating suicides differently for some reason from countless mini-bio articles about people notable for just one thing, yet named after the person rather than the one thing. Why the different treatment for suicides? --B2C 18:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not just suicides, but also many murder victims. What those two groups have in common, often, is even more-than-typically-traumatized surviving relatives. I believe that these names are an attempt (perhaps misguided, perhaps not, but I think genuine) at something in the vein of
WP:BDP
.
But another answer to your question is this--BLP1E and BIO1E are often ignored on wide classes of events, and are particularly enforced on crime victims and suicides. The naming discrepancy you site is, in my view, a reflection of a desire to have a more consistent notability practice given that names and notability criteria are unseverable under current policy. Given a choice between the a more consistent naming practice and a more consistent notability practice, there's no question that I'll stick with more consistent notability practice. You and I might find consensus by severing the two, by making an explicit "people are notable if their death is notable" exception, but I do not believe that there is any chance that such a proposal will gain consensus, and in any case, that adjusted proposal is not what's on the table here. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; when we have a person notable for one achievement -- say a one-hit-wonder album or song -- we generally have an article both on the song, and, if deemed notable enough, on the artist. We do not automatically create an article on the artist, but only if reliable sources exist that are about the artist and not the music. Nor do we write an article on the song but title it as if it were about the artist. Likewise, the notable items in these cases are not the deceased persons, but the events surrounding their deaths. That makes the article titles wholly appropriate. If one of these persons weas actually notable herself, then we would rightly have an article titled with her name in addition to the article about her death. Powers T 18:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Events you say? If you're saying that there is more than
      WP:NOTPOINTy says, "just because someone is making a point does not mean that s/he is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it." Technical 13 (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Different? This is not an unheard-of way to list things here; in fact it is sometimes the rule. The analogous situation is
WP:CRIME. With rare exceptions, an article about a notable crime is not listed under the name of victim or the name of the perpetrator; it is listed as "Murder of Foo" or "Kidnapping of Foo", because the article is about the CRIME, not about the (otherwise non-notable) individuals. In this case, the article is about the SUICIDE, not the (otherwise non-notable) victim or the (otherwise non-notable) bully who drove them to it, if known. The title of the article must reflect what the article is about, and a notable/newsworthy case of suicide is what it is about. --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed. If the issue is WP:BIO1E, then WP:BIO1E needs to be changed. I personally think this is merely a misapplication of WP:BIO1E, but either way, I'm with B2C on this. I also see anti-woman and anti-gay bias on these tags, and yes, the Columbine shooters are a classic example; they get articles with their real names, but the gay kid who got bullied to into suicide without shooting a dozen people first does not? This is a serious issue and people should not be hiding behind WP:BIO1E here. Montanabw(talk) 21:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to explain in more detail why I oppose the moves, and also why I am annoyed by this proposal, because annoyed I am. For one thing, I think it's pretty obvious that there is little support for the proposal, but the supporters are hectoring everyone who opposes. Anyway (takes a deep breath), I'll try to provide a lengthy and thoughtful reply to the supporters. (1) Let's start with the arguments about BIO1E. I find it to miss the point to focus on BIO1E, when
    WP:OTHERSTUFF, so if you are offended by the person-name page given to someone who was a white, hetero, male, take it to that page. Here, let's set aside the emotion, and focus on the encyclopedicality. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thank you. I'm sorry you're annoyed. FWIW, so am I. (1) It's the opposers who brought up BIO1E, and I understand your point about BLP1E, but the L really does stand for Living, and it's salient. I disagree with your view about lack of accomplishment. None of us can judge how difficult another person's life has been for that person, or how difficult it must have been to choose to terminate it. But in each of these cases, reliable sources have deemed that choice in that case to be notable, and that makes the person who made the choice notable, at least as notable as countless other obscure figures with bios in the encyclopedia. (6) The point about the photos was parenthetical supporting the larger main point - the topic of each of these articles is the person. (4) An enormously famous person like Vincent Van Gogh is a totally different category. You've ignored my point that we have countless examples of little short bios about people (barely) notable for just one thing, and most if not all of the article is about that one thing, and yet the title is the name of the person. For the third time, why the different treatment for suicides? --B2C 23:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Actually, I could add
WP:OTHERSTUFF. And I already answered your question, but you chose to ignore my answer: committing suicide or being a murder victim is different than writing a book or making a discovery because it isn't, in itself, an accomplishment. Painful and tragic yes, but not a "life's work". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, bios about barely notable people might be the most common type of article on WP, especially if you ignore places. Repeatedly click on SPECIAL:RANDOM and see how long it takes you to find one. I bet not very long. I don't think such common articles can be fairly considered OTHERSTUFF.

I didn't invent the concept of BLP, but apparently some people thought, and a consensus agreed, that biographies about living people deserve special consideration and sensitivities that no longer applies once they are no longer living. BLP1E falls under that umbrella. But maybe others agree with you. I suggest you find out and get a change made to it accordingly, then apply it in cases like this. If consensus is with you, that should not be too difficult.

No one is arguing notability independent of the suicides, so why are you asking for RS establishing that? The suicide is what makes each of these persons notable, per RS. It makes the person notable. That's why the article is written about the person (no less than any other bio about a barely notable person), and why the title should reflect that.

Okay, I took few clicks on RANDOM, and found Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt Shepard. Why is she notable? Member of the Vanderbilt family. Life's work? Hardly. What accomplishments? Five kids, built a hotel with inherited money, and canceled a reservation on the Titanic. This is not OTHERSTUFF. For better or for worse, it's typical. Three more clicks... Mark Precious. Bronze medal in the 1984 Olympics. That's it. That's a bio? Four more clicks... Joe Lafata. Played three years for the NY Giants. Nothing else. But the article is in his name, and we have nothing else notable to say about his life. Nothing. Six more clicks... Mari Ozaki... got 9th in the 2010 London Marathon. How about Ivan Chernyakhovsky, an obscure Soviet general. Barely notable people are a very common topic for WP articles. Their notability has to be supported by RS. The notability is usually, but not always, a personal accomplishment. The only requirement is support in RS. Suicide victims with support in RS have that. You know, treating them differently is arguably a violation of NPOV. --B2C 05:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, you and I have worked together on other pages, and you know that I feel very friendly towards you. And I promise, really, that I have read carefully what you replied to me here, and all of the subsequent discussion up to this point. So please accept that I am saying in good faith that I believe that I have already refuted everything you said here, although I fully understand that you don't agree with me. I'm done repeating myself, and I sincerely urge you and a few of the other editors who support this move proposal to accept that you have lost the argument, and you need to drop the stick and stop trying to drag the discussion out. I wish you happy editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So someone explain to me how these people are different from 9 year old
    Amber Hagerman, who gets an article with her own name? Seriously. By the arguments I'm seeing here, why NOT title her article "murder of..."? There are MANY articles on WP that aren't "full biographies" of people and about people famous for mostly one thing. B2C makes a good point: why do we treat suicide differently? Montanabw(talk) 17:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You're definitely misunderstanding that. Nowhere did Rivertorch say anything about changing all those titles; he just said that "
other stuff exists" is rarely a good reason to do things. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
@ B2C: given
Shooting of Trayvon Martin as examples, I'm not sure we *do* treat suicides differently. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
To expand just a little (and then I really think I'm done here, since
Amber Hagerman struck me as an example of a title that seemed inconsistent with the way we should—and usually do—title articles about violent deaths, and I think my words were quite clear to anyone who took them at face value, as Writ Keeper did. Rivertorch (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The point I was trying to make, while being
WP:BLP1E is being applied to non-living people. Technical 13 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Writ Keeper, it is my impression that those titles are manifestations of a relatively new trend on WP, and not a positive one. These are exceptions, not typical, and they should not guide us. The examples listed by Technical 13 just above are far more typical, as is made evident by how quickly you can find more such examples of bios about people with unnotable lives with SPECIAL:RANDOM:
The point is that WP is absolutely replete with bios about people with unnotable lives who are notable for one thing, and that the way we treat this articles is as bios, no matter how little (if any) information we have about the person's life, and title them only with the person's name (unless disambiguation is required). Why do we treat suicide bios differently? --B2C 18:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor note, all of the examples I listed above were brought up by others in this discussion somewhere above. Technical 13 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not any place that I can find them. Apteva (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument against a correct set of article titles about a single event that consumed the lives of each named person. Irony is always amusing, though a feature of irony is that it is lost on some folk. Saying an incorrect thing multiple times does not make it correct. This is equine necrophilia now. You've wasted a lot of time making your point. We've heard it, understood it, rejected it, heard it again, reminded ourselves that we understood it, rejected it again. It's boring as boring can be, this stuff. What do you possibly hope to achieve with this? Have you even considered the effect on those who love these people when they come upon your attempts to use their nearest and dearest, now deceased, to win some absurd battle? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
(
WP:NOTCONTEST, and if you think it is about winning or losing, I encourage you to step back and think about that. Technical 13 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
(
Murder of James Byrd, Jr. (since 2003), Murder of Milly Dowler(since 2006), Murder of Yvonne Fletcher (since 2004), Murder of Sarah Payne (since 2004), Murder of Kitty Genovese (since 2003). Those are just the autocomplete suggestions from typing in "Murder of" into the search box. All of these pages were created as "Murder of x" and, except for I think jonBenet, htey have remained at that title since creation. (jonBenet was moved to just her name, but then moved back. Many more examples can be found by just looking at the autosuggest for "Killing of", "Kidnapping of", "Shooting of", "Abduction of", and so on. These seem to be far too many to be exceptions to the rule, and are certainly too old to be part of a recent trend. I'm saying this because I think it greatly detracts from your argument to assert discrimination where none apparently exists. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Obviously we have a double standard. Most people are un-notable at birth. If someone does something "good", a single event that makes them notable, we title the article using their name. If someone does something "bad", or something "bad" is done to them, we write practically the whole article into the title and prohibit any articles using just their name. Not a good practice. Better to just name the article about the topic, which is the person, good or bad. Apteva (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Even if the person utterly fails
notability and has no business being the topic of the article? Rivertorch (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
No further discussion is needed here. People do not pass notability by doing something "good" and fail it for doing something "bad". Both make them equally notable. The principle that I follow is if we do not want to glorify someone by giving them an article, use a title that does not include their name. If their name appears in the title, it is better, if it is the only article about them, to shorten it just to their name. For example, we can have an article titled Al Capone, as well as The Mystery of Al Capone's Vaults. It is good though to encourage free expression of opinions on the subject. The place to discuss it though, really, is at WP:Biographies of living persons, the controlling policy. Apteva (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I entirely agree with your standards of equality, is WP:Biographies of living persons really the controlling policy on people who are not living? That seems counter-intuitive and wrong to me. Technical 13 (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wider topic. WP:Notability (people) applies to those not living. Apteva (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Responding to B2C's request on his talk page that I "keep count somewhere else": so far four people have !voted in support of this proposal and sixteen seventeen have opposed it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the reason I am pointing out the totals is that I believe we have a "consensus not to move" - which is not the same as "no consensus to move". The latter would suggest for the record that opinion was more-or-less evenly divided; the former makes it clear that most people opposed the move. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Notability in these cases seemingly lies with the incidents, not with the individuals. Per

WP:BIO1E, the articles should be named accordingly: for the incident. ╠╣uw [talk] 01:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Discussion Several people have now pointed out the "Murder of ..." examples, arguing that suicide articles fall into the same category. As the nom, I want to acknowledge that that is a point well taken. Thank you Melanie, Joe Decker, SmokeyJoe, Writ Keeper, etc.

However, that's an interesting issue, and I already noted it at the start of the discussion. In the case of a random murder, the victim's life is essentially irrelevant, and the "Murder of ..." title arguably makes sense. But in a purposeful murder, by which I mean someone is murdered for who they are, or what they did, then the person and their life arguably becomes significant and notable, presuming the murder itself is considered notable. But in suicide, and particularly notable suicides, the whole story is about the person, their life, and why they chose to end it. The story about a suicide is not so much about the act itself (the suicide), but about the person who chose to do it, and why, which again is about the person. So, despite the well-taken point regarding "Murder of ..." articles, I still think suicide articles are about the suicide victim, are bios (at least as much as the plethora of barely notable bios with which WP is replete are bios), and they should be titled accordingly, with just the name of the person (unless disambiguation is required). --B2C 20:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's necessarily a story about the person who chose to do it, but rather about the factors that contributed to the action. These particular articles don't seem to read as biographies. Omnedon (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "These particular articles don't seem to read as biographies", I suggest you're using a standard for biography that the vast majority of WP biographies don't meet. We've listed many examples of this in previous comments above, but the point is that these articles named for people that don't seem to read as biographies are not cherry-picked exceptions, but are typical (found with SPECIAL:RANDOM), comprising perhaps 5% of all of our articles, maybe as much as 10%. So arguing that these suicide articles should not be seen as bios nor named for the subject person because they don't read as biographies is very weak, since that same criticism also applies to most of our biographies. --B2C 21:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To be sure, noting that the "Murder of..." and "Suicide of..." articles are similar in construction doesn't invalidate trying to change it; I'm just trying to point out that it's likely not the result of a bias or double-standard against suicide. Anyway, in an ideal world, I'd totally agree with you that suicide articles should be primarily about the victim, B2C. My concern though is that we're restricted to writing what the sources give us, and that if there aren't enough sources that adequately cover the victim's life, then the article ends up not being about the victim, whether we want it or not. Admittedly, I haven't looked at the articles in this proposal specifically (which is why I've tried to avoid giving a direct opinion in the RfC itself), but my general impression of these types of articles is that there's little more than cursory coverage of the victim's life, with all the attention instead being drawn to the other issues. Since we have to follow the coverage, this leads the articles to talk relatively little about the victims, and so naming the article directly after the victim would give a false impression of what the article actually covers. If there are enough sources to write a meaningful article covering the person's life, then I would agree that the article should be titled with the person's name, rather than "Suicide of x". It's just my impression that that's usually not the case, and so I can't agree with the blanket statement that all suicide articles should be renamed, which seems to have been the root of the proposal (which talks solely in generics, not discussing the specific articles in question). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment above (reply to Omnedon) to avoid repetition, but in short the same criticism applies to the vast majority of WP biographies. That is, we have thousands and thousands of bios comprised of just a few sentences about the one notable thing the person did or was involved with, and nothing else about the person, because there is nothing else in RS. But we still have the article, it's considered a biography, and we title it with the person's name. The undisputed fact that the suicide articles have very little about the person's life, because there is very little in RS about the person's life, simply does not distinguish them from the vast majority of our biography articles, and so does not justify different treatment. --B2C 21:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that it's avoidable in traditional biographies but unavoidable in these biographies; our biographies are bad, but if improved, then they would read like biographies. For these articles, it's not a matter of just not having gotten around to writing about their lives; it's that the sources for their lives don't exist, so it's impossible for us ever to write verifiably about their lives. Basically, "because there is very little in RS about the person's life" does distinguish them from the vast majority of our biographical articles; in fact, it's their defining characteristic, because that's how we determine whether they are indeed notable. I guess it's just that when you say "then the person and their life arguably becomes significant and notable", I would be one of the ones to argue against that; their lives are only notable if we have the RSes to talk about it, and if we don't, then their lives aren't notable, which is where the "Suicide of" distinction comes in. It's arguable, like you said; at this point I'm pretty much out of words to continue discussing it but remain unconvinced for my part, so I'm gonna have to close my own participation in this with a "respectfully agree to disagree", as I did on Montanabw's talk page. I see where you're coming from, and though I don't agree with your arguments, I see the sense in them and respect them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly true that many of our biographies are bad because the work is incomplete. But there are plenty for which the situation is identical as it is for most of the suicide victims - there simply is nothing else in RS about these people.

For example, I notice that many of these biographies are about athletes with unremarkable records. Maybe they participated in the Olympics once. Maybe they were on a pro team a few years. That's it. There is nothing else.

In fact, many of these suicide articles listed in this RM proposal have much more information about the victim in RS than exists for many of our other bios. I'm sorry, but this is not a distinguishing feature. If you think it is, you really need to click on SPECIAL:RANDOM, maybe a few dozen times at most, to see how quickly you can find several sparse bios, more sparse than these suicide bios, and which cannot be significantly improved. --B2C 21:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but that's why I tend to swing deletionist. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Touché! I respect your consistency. But I think it's useful to have even a stubbish article about someone who did or was involved with something notable, even if there is nothing else in RS about that person, just to note the dates and places of birth and death, and as a record that nothing else about the person is notable, if nothing else.

This is hypothetical, but I presume we would have such a stubbish article about an author with a non-notable life of a single published work, noting the work, and the basic facts of their life.

In fact, I would say that if these articles remain at "Suicide of X", we should still have separate bio articles about each person. The idea that someone's book or suicide is notable, but the person himself is not, makes no sense to me. I mean, if it wasn't for that person, that notable book or suicide would not even exist, much less be notable, so of course the person is notable. --B2C 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{od}}Can't help but notice that all the "murder of" articles listed above are, again, about people who are NOT white, straight, adult males. Most are women, the rest children of men of color. Interesting. I know that some folks don't see that there is also a (probably unconscious) bias here, but I"m Just saying... Seriously, would someone go find more straight white adult male "sensationalistic death of" - titled articles? I'm curious now... simply curious... curiouser and curiouser... (looks around for looking glass or rabbit hole, this is rather a surreal discussion...)  :-D Montanabw(talk) 21:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did give you
Killing of Travis Alexander, who was a straight white adult male. Opinions on its real notability differ, but it does demonstrate that this naming scheme applies to them, too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
(edit conflict) I'm doing OR here, and may very well not know what I'm talking about, but I'll hazard a guess that straight white adult males are less vulnerable to being murdered. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, the murders/suicides of straight white males are less likely to be covered in depth by reliable sources, since the news doesn't have an "oppressed minority" angle to play up and there would be fewer social changes/causes associated, so they're less likely to get an article at all. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two more: Killing of Peter Fechter and Death of David Coughlin. Killing of David Wilkie might be one, but it doesn't discuss his nationality at all, so it's hard to say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Writ Keeper said. Some editors here seem to believe that naming the article "Suicide of Foo" rather than "Foo" shows bias against or disrespect for the victims - as individuals or as a class. That argument does not hold up. If there is bias to be found in these articles, it is not in the titling and it is not on the part of Wikipedia; it is on the part of the media - those 'independent reliable sources' that determine whether a subject is or is not notable enough for an article. Every year there are more than 30,000 suicides in the United States and comparable thousands in other countries. The vast majority of these suicides receive minimal or no news coverage, so they have no article here. A few dozen cases every year receive heavy publicity because they fit into a currently favored media narrative: the harmful effects of bullying. If it is claimed that someone killed themselves because they were bullied, it becomes a news story; if not, not. Such victims are usually teenagers or gay or both, so naturally that is who make up the bulk of the articles we are talking about here. It could actually be argued that there is a bias in FAVOR of young or gay victims, since they at least get an article here, while the vast majority of suicide victims get nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I understand your argument here, "it's not our fault that our titles are discriminatory, the media set it up that way and we are just following their lead"? If so, all I can say is how original that is. Now, for the reason I really came to post in this discussion. I was doing some clean-up to remove parameters from articles using Template:Marriage so that those parameters could be removed from the template until some serious template overhaul is done to make the parameters useful when I came upon Donald Mackay (anti-drugs campaigner) with open brackets of "Donald Bruce Mackay (13 September 1933 – 15 July 1977) was an Australian anti-drugs campaigner who came to fame in 1977 through the circumstances of his murder." that was created 04:29, April 30, 2005. Apparently, 8 years ago nearer the beginning, "sensational thing about foo" wasn't even considered. According to the talk page of that article, it has ever been suggested that it should be moved to Murder of Donald Mackay. What is the explanation of why this person is notable enough because he was murdered but the other more recent articles subjects aren't? Technical 13 (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't understand the argument here. The media have nothing to do with our titles. It is the media's "fault", if you will, that our selection of articles is discriminatory: that almost all of our articles about suicides of otherwise non-notable people fall into a certain group. Given that selection of articles, we follow normal titling policy, which is that the title of the article depends on what the subject of the article is - and in these cases the subject is a notable death. In all the cases under discussion here, that is what the title reflects - a notable suicide. Some of us have brought up, for analogy, the case of notable deaths by murder. In those cases, according to
Brenda Ann Spencer was recently moved to Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego).--MelanieN (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Technical 13, I understand that you are a relatively new editor, so I want to point out something about how Wikipedia deals with the media and other source material. Even if the larger society, and the media that reflects it, engage in something that editors consider to be objectionable, we cannot alter our presentation of the source material on that basis, because doing so would violate
WP:NOR. There are plenty of places on the Internet where one can work to right wrongs, but Wikipedia isn't designed to be one of those. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Folks, lay of Technical 13, the points being made are valid. While something like "
Murder of JonBenét Ramsey is dehumanizing and does not make sense --in fact, these two articles make excellent examples of what WP:BIO1E should and should not be. As B2C says, (and I agree with this) "The idea that someone's book or suicide is notable, but the person himself is not, makes no sense to me. I mean, if it wasn't for that person, that notable book or suicide would not even exist..." Although RL may have a scant number of sources on certain people, it is WIKIPEDIA's responsibility to uphold NPOV, which, IMHO includes not making an inherently POV value judgement on whether a cricket player in Sri Lanka is more significant than a 13 year old victim of bullycide. If their article survives deletion (nod to Writ) then the primary article about them should be titled with their name, with stuff about Foo titles only being used when a spinoff title is needed. Montanabw(talk) 00:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Does "lay of" (sic) mean "lay off"? I'm pretty sure that what I said was a very civil and well-intentioned explanation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think that's the point, most succinctly stated. We should only have a "Stuff about John Doe" when it makes sense for "John Doe" to have a spinoff article about that. Either way, there needs to be a "John Doe" article. To have a "Stuff about John Doe" without a "John Doe" is like a body without a head. --B2C 03:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I would like us to do in every case. If the article is named "stuff" without mentioning the name, fine, but if the name is included in the title, the "stuff" part should be deleted and the article simply named by the person's name, just as we do with every other person. Apteva (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Murder of Meredith Kercher comes to mind as a well watched developed article. Meredith the person is not notable, and content about the person generally is appropriately thin. While "suicide of" is slighter more grey, generally these suicides are blamed on outside causes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And to me that's an example of something that's wrong. If the topic of someone's murder (or suicide) is notable, then that someone is obviously notable.

That is, simply being murdered (or committing suicide) does not make someone previously not notable, notable. However, if the murder or suicide rises to the level of notability based on coverage in reliable sources, then so does the victim. So in all such cases we should at least have an article on the person. Whether the murder or suicide is covered in the article or as a spinoff depends on mostly on whether there is sufficient content to warrant a spinoff. I would expect that to be rarely the case in a murder or suicide of someone who was previously not notable.

The notion that someone's murder or suicide is notable based on coverage in RS, but the person who was killed remains not notable, is simply nonsensical. --B2C 20:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current practice is right. Wikipedia should not be first in publishing biographies. If the thematic bullicide articles are scant on sourced information, the solution is to merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there headings artificially dividing some sort of survey from some sort of discussion? This is an unusual layout for such a discussion. it is all about the requested move. It;s as though there is a division into a ballot and a rationale, which is unacceptable. This needs to be close at the appropriate time with regard to the arguments made, not a tally of pro and con. The more customary route is the deployment of arbtrary subheadings to allow editing ease. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Separating an RM proposal with lots of discussion into survey and discussion sections is fairly common. If you've never seen it before, you must not have participated in very many RM discussions. In fact, the
      RMtalk template creates those sections automatically. --B2C 20:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]

How can a suicide (or murder) of someone be notable, but the someone remains not notable? To all who oppose this move proposal, please answer this question. How can the suicide (or murder) of someone be notable, presumably due to coverage in reliable sources, but the person was was killed remains not notable? I mean, every reference to the murder or suicide will also refer to the victim - making the victim at least as notable as the murder or suicide, based on coverage in RS, no? Thank you.

And as for the argument that the person's "life" is not notable, so the person is not notable, please see countless numbers of bio articles that we have (many listed above), that are not cherry-picked (found with a few clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM) of notable people without notable lives. --B2C 20:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again? You need it answered again? Serious;y, again? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A link (or copy/paste) to where it's already answered is fine. --B2C 21:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. Pointless
busywork. A waste of everyone's time, including yours. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm 100% in agreement with Fiddle Faddle's objection to this discussion thread. But, out of respect for B2C, I'm going to reply. Once. So don't be surprised if I don't reply to any follow-up questions. The answer is that the persons who were suicides or murder victims did not do anything in their lives, outside of the suicide or murder, that would meet Wikipedia's specialized definition of notability. If one examines the reliable sources cited on those pages, the reactions to the suicide or murder are all related to the suicide or murder, as opposed to reactions to something else that was notable in the persons' lives. There are other biographical pages of people whose notability may be a subject of debate, but the claim of notability is based on something they did in the course of their lives, as opposed to in the course of their deaths. Now, I'm going to stipulate that B2C will disagree with me, and I'll repeat that I'm not going to be drawn into repeating myself endlessly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I disagree; it's that the distinction you seem to draw (see below) seems biased and contrary to NPOV. --B2C 23:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to be going around in circles, but B2C raises a good point. IMHO, this example suggests that the better policy is precisely what has been done with the
Amber Hagerman articles; an article about the notable thing, and because there was enough info for a separate article about the vicitm, both articles exist. However, "murder of" titles are NOT the way it should work. It's dehumanizing and disrespectful. Someone could make an argument that the two articles could be merged, but never should the Amber Hagerman article be moved to a "murder of" title. Montanabw(talk) 22:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
You think it's "dehumanizing and disrespectful". I have no doubt that you are sincere in this belief. I, and other editors who have worked on some of these pages, believe just as sincerely that the opposite is true, and you have no basis to doubt our sincerity. Indeed, much of my desire to spend time on some of these pages has come from a deep desire to make sure that we have a respectful account. It looks like a large majority of interested editors believe that it is neither dehumanizing nor disrespectful, whereas a small number of editors sincerely dissent. Given the subjectivity, I hope that you will, indeed, accept that we are going around in circles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if either is "dehumanizing and disrespectful". To me, if "something of X" is a topic notable enough for an article, then X must be notable enough for an article, given any entity, human or not, named X. Besides murder/suicide of... articles, are there any "something of X" articles where we don't have an article named X? I don't think so. Given that, there is no question that there should be an article about X. So the only question is whether the "something of X" topic is to be a spinoff or contained within X. --B2C 23:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does WHEN matter?

Given we're talking about people notable for one thing (which may or may not be a personal accomplishment), Tryptofish seems to think (and others, presumably, agree) it should matter whether the one thing that makes someone notable happens at the very beginning of their lives (notable birth, such as when born to a notable family, e.g. Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt Shepard, Consuelo Vanderbilt), somewhere in between (typical bio article, such as most under the Category:Australian cricketers category), or at the very end (a notable death), with respect to whether the article should be about the one notable thing or the person, and titled accordingly. Why does WHEN matter? --B2C 23:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About births, please see
WP:BIO#Family. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I suggest that does not represent consensus in terms of actual practice. --B2C 23:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not about births. If there are other pages where actual practice appears wrong to you, those pages are that-a-way. Here, you need to give it a rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They don't appear "wrong" to me. An enormous/overwhelming number of articles are titled in juxtaposition to how this very small number of articles is titled. In theory we can change those other titles, but that would be highly impractical. --B2C 22:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the article about?

The question is not really whether the victim is notable. The question is, what is the article about? Is it about the person, or is it about the event which called attention to an otherwise non-notable person? To put it another way, what was it that received the required "substantial coverage in multiple independent reliables sources": was it the person's biography and achievements, or was it the fact and circumstances of their death? WP:CRIME suggests that we do not generally need two separate articles, but that the person should usually be redirected/merged to the crime. And WP:TITLE says that the title should reflect the subject of the article: "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the countless numbers of bio articles that we have (many listed above), that are not cherry-picked (found with a few clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM) of notable people without notable lives. The subject of those articles is not the person either - but the one thing for which the person is notable. Our practice, however, is to title and word such articles as if it is about the person. That's how all these suicide articles are written as well. --B2C 21:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When the crime is inseparable from the person, I'm with B2C. The Columbine shootings had multiple victims, they are named in a list at that article and do not each get separate biographies, that makes sense. But where it is a standalone victim, that's really quite different B2C is right, you can't separate the victim from the crime in those cases. Montanabw(talk) 22:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and so there should be a single article. Should it be about the crime, or about the person? I have often argued for merge/redirect when a notable-for-one-thing-only biography is brought to AfD and the one-thing they are notable for already has an article. (Author with only a single notable book, one-hit wonder musician, etc.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Melanie that these articles are about the event, not about the person, and the article title should reflect that. If the article was written as a biography -- about the person, including the event but not primarily focusing on it -- then that would be different. These articles do not seem to be written that way. The articles are about the events. Omnedon (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have countless articles about people notable for one thing, and these articles are almost entirely about the one thing. If our practice was to name these articles in the form of "the thing of John Doe", then I would be with you and Melanie. But that's not our practice (and I suggest for good reason). We almost never do that. We almost always title such articles with the name of the person.

The good reason, by the way, is that if "x of Y" is a notable topic, then whatever Y is the name of must be a notable topic, and should have an article. It makes no sense to have

Foo. Given an article named Foo, "Bar of Foo" is likely to be part of, or even most of, that article's content. That's just how it is. --B2C 05:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

No matter how many times you say something, that does not make it true. Everyone can see that this is going in ever decreasing circles. It's time to put a closure box around whatever the wholly uninvolved and unbiased administrator's closure is and move on Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But B2C, you keep restating this in different terms than Melanie and I. You say "We have countless articles about people notable for one thing, ...". These articles are not about the people. They are about the events. And as for your second statement, it does not logically follow that if we have an article on a notable event, that therefore the person involved in the event is necessarily notable for the single reason that s/he was involved. That's not just how it is. Omnedon (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Omnedon, when you say "these articles are not about the people", I presume you're referring to the suicide articles that are the subject of this proposal.

Using

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Alyaksandr Shahoyka is typical of thousands and thousands similar light bios, one of the most common type of articles on WP. --B2C 18:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

B2C, naturally I am referring to the articles under discussion when I say "these articles". The subjects of those articles are the suicides of those people, not the people themselves. Naturally the people will figure in the articles. That doesn't mean that the people are the subjects. These are not biographies. Omnedon (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good; just verifying. You're either missing or ignoring my point. Let me put it in your words.

The subjects of the countless articles like Alyaksandr Shahoyka (and Saša Bogunović, Robert Picard, Alexander G. McCandless, Joe H. Eagle, Giovanni Gasparini, to mention a few more I found with just a few dozen clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM) are the barely notable careers of those people, not the people themselves. Naturally the people will figure in the articles. That doesn't mean that the people are the subjects. These are not biographies. But we still word them and title them as if they are. Why should the suicide articles be any different? --B2C 19:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, it's well known that Wikipedia has vastly different criteria for inclusion for some groups than for others. Sports figures: if they have been professional or Olympians, they get a biographical article, no matter how little is known about them. Academics, professors, physicians: they have to be demonstrably at the top of their field to get a biographical article. Unfair, inconsistent, but that's how we do it. Why? It's just consensus for those areas. Want to change the consensus? Go ahead and try, and good luck. And in the second place, when there is an article about an athlete who was in just one Olympics, or an inventor who invented one thing, at least it is THEIR ACHIEVEMENT that got them an article. Their life, their training, their education, their cleverness got them to the point that they could do a notable thing. So to that extent is IS about them, whether or not we have all the details about their education and training and background. To some extent, their achievement implies their biography. But for a crime victim, or a suicide victim, it's not anything they "earned" for themselves. They did not set out to do something notable; it just happened to them. We can't know or guess anything about their life or their background from the fact that they were murdered, or committed suicide. So from that point of view it makes sense that a person who achieved something notable gets a biography-type article (or gets merged to the article about their achievement, if it is more notable than they are) - whereas a notable death is treated as an event rather than a biography (if the person is not otherwise notable). --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, Omnedon: Agreed. The

WP:BIO1E
. The notability lies with the single incident, not with the individual, and so the individual's name correctly redirects to the article on the incident (as the guideline says it should).

By the same token, each individual in this proposal is known in connection with a single tragic incident. That by itself is not enough to make the person himself/herself notable in his/her own right, and is very different from someone who may be notable for more than a single isolated incident – e.g., a politican, a professional athlete, a popular musician, etc.

And of course (as noted) articles on different subjects do in fact often follow different guidelines when it comes to notability, titling, etc., as the community determines appropriate. I don't see that as problematic. ╠╣uw [talk] 01:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, I am neither ignoring nor missing anything here; I simply disagree with you on this point. When you say "we" -- who is "we"? These articles weren't titled the way you wish, but these titles make sense because they indicate the subject of the article. And the subject of the article is not the person but the event. A professional athlete has a career, even if it may not be stellar, and a career is not an event. A suicide or a murder is not the same thing at all. But you do seem to be agreeing that these are not biographies -- yet you insist for some reason that they should be titled as such. Omnedon (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the suicide articles are "biographies" is a semantic question whose answer depends on whether we define "biography" broadly or narrowly. I'm just asking that we use one or the other consistently.

If we use a broad definition of biography, broad enough to include the countless 2-3 sentence articles we have about people with barely notable careers, and titled with their names, then these suicide articles are also biographies.

If we use a narrow definition of "biography" so that an article must include fairly extensive information about one's life to be a biography, then, yes, these suicide articles are not biographies, but, then, neither are most of the articles that we treat and title as biographies.

So, which is it? Narrow or broad?

According to practice we are using the broad definition of biography, so these suicide articles are biographies by that measure as well. To argue that the suicide articles are not biographies based on a narrow definition of "biography" that is not used for our other biographical articles is nonsensical. --B2C 14:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing two types of articles and trying to make it seem that they are the same. One type is about a person, however brief the article may be. The other type is about an event. The latter type is not biographical, however often you may claim otherwise. Take the Steve Bartman incident article, for example. It is named for the incident, and that is the subject of the article. The person is not notable, but the incident is. The article is not biographical. Neither are these articles. They are about events. Omnedon (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also question your use of the word "nonsensical". You are once again characterizing opposing arguments as nonsense. Please don't do that. Omnedon (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B2C: An article on an incident is neither a broad nor narrow biography, nor a biography at all – it's an article on an incident. When it comes to an article on a noteworthy event involving a non-noteworthy individual, the guidelines assert that such articles are best titled for the incident, not the participant.
As for other articles you've cited, they tend to be about people notable for more than involvement in a single isolated event: they're career professional athletes, politicians, etc. Consider: if Robert Picard (one of the people you mentioned) was simply a man who disrupted a hockey championship one time by skating out onto the ice, and that incident became well documented, we probably would not have an article on the man but might instead have an article entitled Robert Picard incident (just as we have a Steve Bartman incident or a JetBlue flight attendant incident). However, Picard is not merely known as a participant in a single isolated event: he had a 13-year career and is considered under WP guidelines to be notable in his own right, and so has his own article: Robert Picard.
Put simply, I don't see anything to suggest that the suicide of a non-noteworthy individual automatically makes the person noteworthy to the point of having his or her own article, even if the suicide itself receives attention. Articles describing the event should be titled accordingly: for the event. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way. In general, if there is a person about which there is something notable to say, based on citations in reliable sources, then I think that makes the person notable and we should have an article about that person, title with the person's name, period. That is, a person is a topic, and any topic which has references/citations in reliable sources is a notable topic and should have an article on WP. I don't understand why anyone would want to limit that.

Also, these articles are not just about the suicide events. Often they give other pertinent information about the person, like their age, birth date, life circumstances which may have lead to the suicide, anything about the person that can be found in reliable sources belong in these articles.

To say the topic is the event of the suicide is really not true. Are they full-blown biographies? No, but that has never been a requirement to have an article about a person on WP. --B2C 20:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 1: That is squarely contrary to WP:Bio1E. Bio1E is well respected, is it not?. We want to limit full biographies due to single events because the expansion could not be supported by third party secondary sources.
Paragraph 2: Age and birth date are data not information. Life circumstances which may have lead to the suicide, as covered in sources, is directly relevant to the "Suicide of" article, or the merged articles on suicides.
If in a "suicide of" article the topic is not the event of the suicide, then editing is required. Or merging, deleting or renaming, as guided by the sourced coverage. After someones suicide, someone independent may publish a biography. This then is justification for a Wikipedia biography. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting that a WP biography is only justified if a traditional biography about the person exists outside of WP? If so, that's contrary to probably 90% or more of our biography articles. That's why I think there is more to discuss here. The arguments used to oppose this move seem to be based on holding these suicide articles up to standards like this that the bulk of our biography articles do not meet, and are not expected to meet.

If the topic is not supported by third party secondary sources, then it should not be an article, whether it's titled as being about the suicide of the person or the person. --B2C 21:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But (again) an article on an event is not a biography: it's an article on an event. The two are different. ╠╣uw [talk] 23:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close this discussion

This entire discussion has been circular for a great many days. It's time to realise that none of the people who have discussed this so far are moving position at all. Trench warfare has never been productive. Hell is not about to freeze over, so we could carry on discussing this for ever All we are doing is effectively defacing the talk page of an article which discusses the death of a person loved by other people. Can you possibly imagine being one of those people and seeing this mess? What might it do to your emotions and blood pressure?

There is a request for closure on the relevant forum, but, so far, no-one has touched it. Since no-one is convincing anyone here, isn't it time to fall silent and allow closure? Surely every possible argument for and against has now been exhausted, and several days ago at that? If you don't like the closure there are even ways to appeal that. Fortunately they do not take place here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Tradionally, RM discussions last 7 days, so we are past the finish line. I trust that a brave administrator will close the discussion in due time, and until then, the Wiki will not burn down. And until then, point-counterpoint accomplishes nothing more. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this discussion has reached the end of it's life-cycle and needs to be closed. I'm still not any more convinced that these articles are not about the people, and should be titled as such. I concur this particular discussion needs to be closed and request in the interest of the families of the peoples who these pages are about that the requests and discussion be archived to a neutral location. I really don't care where, as long as they are stripped from here. Technical 13 (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no issue of "neutrality" just as there is no role for Wikipedia to
WT:BIO, the place where continued discussion is more appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It's clear this discussion is going nowhere. I am, however, extraordinarily disappointed that so many here apparently confuse "neutrality" with a complete failure to understand that basic human decency is not a POV. I am sad to see so little respect for people who died in tragic circumstances. Only on wiki do we deem people notable for their completion of suicide as "unnotable." This is a misinterpretation of BIO1E at best and an example of what is wrong with wikipedia at worst. But carry on. Nothing new here. Montanabw(talk) 21:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An outside uninvolved admin needs to decide whether to close or relist because discussion is still ongoing. --B2C 22:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you are banging the same drum in the same way does not mean it is ongoing. It just means you are banging the same drum in the same way. Are you trying to bore everyone into submission? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I realize it is almost impossible for the outcome of this particular proposal to be favorable from my point of view. However, that does not mean there cannot be more productive discussion from those interested in carrying on that may have influences down the road. No one is forcing you or anyone else to keep reading or participating. If you think it's done, then stop reading and posting. --B2C 23:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fiddle Faddle: The discussion has been lengthy and has explored a number of salient points, and I agree with other editors that closure is now desirable. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO says suicide victims should be article subjects

Suicide victims should be the subject of a WP article per the very clear guidance of

Wikipedia:BIO#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators
:

... the ... victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:
For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime
  1. The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with
    well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.[1]
...

First, we are only talking about suicides that are

well-documented historic events
, or there would not be an article in the first place. Second, the suicide victim of course has a large role in his or her own suicide! An overwhelmingly large role! In other words, the victim of a suicide sufficiently notable to be in WP has a large role in a well-documented historic event, by definition, and therefore should be the subject of a WP article.

Other people involved, like perhaps a bully that pushed the victim to the brink, is what this criteria is about. In each such case we would have to consider the size of the role of the bully in the well-documented suicide, and there the bar is higher because the bully is presumably still alive so BLP1E still applies. But there should be no question that the victim himself/herself clearly meets the criteria "to be the subject of a Wikipedia article". --B2C 21:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are about the events not the people. Hmm, this has been said rather often, though. You see, no-one is changing their views. At present we are held here because you keep reintroducing more of the same stuff. Enough is enough, really. There are no new arguments here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B2C, you conveniently left out the first sentence of that section:"A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." And you left out the preamble to the part you did quote: "Where there are no appropriate existing articles...." For each of the above cases, there already is an appropriate existing article, thus there should not be an article about the person. This move request amounts to "let's get rid of the existing article about the death, and then let's invoke the 'no existing article' clause so we can have an article about the person." --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe anyone is suggesting having two articles. The issue is, given that there is only one article, should the one article be framed as being about the suicide event with the person as a "sub topic" of that article (their name or corresponding dab page link would redirect to the article), or should it be framed as being about the person with the suicide event as a "sub topic" of that article.

The "if there is an existing article" and "where there are no appropriate existing articles" parts apply only when the question is whether to create an additional/new separate article about the person. That's not the case here, so that's why I left it out. Okay?

The point is, moving each of these articles as proposed satisfies the relevant guideline with aplomb. --B2C 23:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline - both the parts you quoted and the parts you chose not to quote - make it pretty clear that the victim "should not normally be the subject" of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fiddle, the plain English wording of the intro of this very article, which is typical of all of them, clearly contradicts your assertion that this article about the event, not the person:
Kelly Yeomans (1984 – 28 September 1997) was an
Derby. Her 1997 suicide, at the age of 13, became widespread news when the cause was blamed on bullying
to which she had been subjected by other local children.
First, note that the bold part is her name, not the title of the article, indicating the subject of the article is her, not the event. Note also you would have to use artificial language and really go through some grammatical contortions to make it be about "the event".

Second, the entire opening sentence is information about her, and makes no mention of the event.

Finally, the event is mentioned, as basis for why she is notable, as is appropriate in all WP articles, and still supporting my contention that the article is about her, not the suicide event, though of course the suicide is a big part of it, since that's why SHE is notable. --B2C 23:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. There's really nothing in the article that is not relevant to the topic specified by the title. If you don't like the way the lead is stated or bold, that would be a less disruptive thing to work on than continuing to push your minimalist naming agenda. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that there is nothing in the article that is not relevant to either topic in question - the suicide or the person - so that does not favor either. My point stands, however, in that the intro is written clearly as if the subject is the person.

I do like the way the intro is stated. It's stated correctly and naturally, and consistent with the person being the topic/subject of the article. Trying to change it to conform to the ill-chosen title is bass-ackwards. The title should reflect the article content; we should not be changing content to reflect the title! --B2C 00:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I like the way it's written, too. And the article contents support the title, and the title describes the topic. So we're done. Or fix it way Huwmanbeing suggests, even though you mis-parse it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B2C: Contortions are unnecessary, e.g.: "The suicide of Kelly Yeomans (1984 – 28 September 1997), a 13-year-old English schoolgirl from the Allenton suburb of Derby, became widespread news when the cause was blamed on bullying to which she had been subjected by other local children." Easy. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's contortion. "a 13-year-old English schoolgirl" modifies the noun phrase "the suicide of ...", which is nonsensical. --B2C 02:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

  1. ^ Example: Matthew Shepard.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_of_Kelly_Yeomans&oldid=1209128792"