Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Bitney Crone
- 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 delete. The consensus was to merge to Thomas Bridegroom, but that article has been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bridegroom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shane Bitney Crone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
May fail WP:ENT. Article was created by Thbridegroom (talk · contribs), who I believe is the subject's now-deceased partner. This video is of relevance to the subjects. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bridegroom. Pyrrhus16 12:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. This is an important aspect of the same-sex marriage issue and lack of marital rights regarding funeral and hospital visitation rights. but Shane Bitney Crone himself is not notable (yet). --Joshuaism (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. The article says Crone made headlines in May 2012 when he released a video [...]. Where are the headlines? -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: For example here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.112.169 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thank you: "Why Gay Marriage Matters". The video is not in the headline. Yes, the video (with its narrator, Crone) plays an important part in this news segment. If there were more such appearances described straightforwardly (without exaggeration) in the article, I'd be more inclined to support the retention of the article and probably other editors would too. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your point is legitimate (and I note you asked much the same question in the related page for Tom Bridegroom). I agree there should be solid evidence re notability. Can I offer that there was a report in the Huffington Post here.Orfeocookie (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this starts to look interesting. Feel free to add it to the article ... though I think that this would then be a "BLP1E". -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I agree with you on that. I think it's too early to tell, frankly, whether this single video is significant enough to be the kind of 'big event' that would overcome that concern. It might turn out that way, but not yet. It would be good if the issue could be considered further in, say 1-2 months but I'm not well-versed enough in Wikipedia policy (including deletion policy) to know whether that's viable, or whether the 2 pages could be 'undeleted' if this proves to have significant staying power.Orfeocookie (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article on a given subject has been deleted via AfD but somebody thinks they can create an article that satisfies the objections that led to deletion, then they should contact the administrator who closed the AfD and deleted the article, explaining this. If the explanation doesn't sway the administrator, the would-be article creator can still appeal to "Deletion review". -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I agree with you on that. I think it's too early to tell, frankly, whether this single video is significant enough to be the kind of 'big event' that would overcome that concern. It might turn out that way, but not yet. It would be good if the issue could be considered further in, say 1-2 months but I'm not well-versed enough in Wikipedia policy (including deletion policy) to know whether that's viable, or whether the 2 pages could be 'undeleted' if this proves to have significant staying power.Orfeocookie (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this starts to look interesting. Feel free to add it to the article ... though I think that this would then be a "BLP1E". -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your point is legitimate (and I note you asked much the same question in the related page for Tom Bridegroom). I agree there should be solid evidence re notability. Can I offer that there was a report in the Huffington Post here.Orfeocookie (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thank you: "Why Gay Marriage Matters". The video is not in the headline. Yes, the video (with its narrator, Crone) plays an important part in this news segment. If there were more such appearances described straightforwardly (without exaggeration) in the article, I'd be more inclined to support the retention of the article and probably other editors would too. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: For example here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.112.169 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E in conjunction with WP:NOTNEWS. His importance to the same sex rights is not established. The coverage is of course recent as it cannot be anything but. More importantly, the coverage is not widespread and so is simply a news item. Yet another report on a popular Youtube video. -- Whpq (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, possible merged with the Thomas Bridegroom article. The story was covered on CNN, giving it national coverage. 131.174.85.207 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:07, 27 May 2012 (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.