- 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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Somers (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)
I don't believe that this person is notable. Yes his suicide was sad but he is not the only war vet to choose this route so if his suicide makes him notable we open up WP to every dead vet. Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The person has acquired "significant, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources" (CNN, The Guardian, Gawker, Daily Mail, etc.), which makes him pass WP:BIO. And yes, his suicide has indeed made him notable. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 08:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wikipedia's guideline WP:GNG is met handily with this biography, having so many reliable sources commenting on the man and his words that went viral. Regarding the heartless "every dead vet" comment, Wikipedia can and should have articles about every one of them that meets notability guidelines. Certainly Somers does. Binksternet (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this appears to be a case of WP:BIO1E. He is notable only for his suicide. All of the sources are a rehashing of his suicide. EricSerge (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- However, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Given his suicide (including his suicide note and his attitude towards the war) has significance, and he certainly has the "main role" in the event, I'd like to say he's eligible for an article. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 13:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will admit that he got brief, broad coverage, for a single event. However, the event is no more notable than any other disturbed vet who killed themselves. While his death is tragic, his suicide did not seem to have any long lasting effect or impact that would make it encyclopedic. Are we giving undue weight to recent-ism and because he is a nice white kid from the suburbs? Daniel's story has a place on Wikipedia. He is an illustrative example of the PTSD epidemic that will shadow the generation of GWOT Vets for the rest of their lives. His story belongs in an article dealing with that subject. EricSerge (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It certainly seems notable. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 13:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - is it the event (suicide and the viral suicide note) or the person that is notable? More from WP:ONEEVENT which says "it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both" and "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person". It was the note that got the attention. Should the title be "Suicide of Daniel Somers"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 20:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete His notability is achieved solely through his suicide. All the coverage noted was for the event, not the person. Seems that WP:BIO1E applies and the article should not stand. Vertium When all is said and done 00:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable in life or depth. The current trivial coverage is to be judged by the same standards as n internet meme, where some substantial degree of permanent significance is required. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but move. I am full of pain for what became of him, but it was not the man who was notable. And it wasn't the suicide that was notable either, but the international attention his suicide note received. This is definitely notable, IMO, but it's the event of the media response or maybe the suicide note itself that is notable. RIP Daniel Somers. Dcs002 (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Violation of Wikipedia not being news. We do not cover every passing news trend. If this had happened in 1989 no one would have ever bothered making an article, people only created an article because it was an extremely recent event. It is not of lasting significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Cancel hold request) Sorry, but I don't know the appropriate way to request this. Please give me at least a day to establish continued historical significance, as that seems to be the major sticking point in this discussion. A simple Google search turned up a bunch of articles about Daniel Somers and his death, including articles in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Daily Mail. I will expand the article and source this continued coverage after the event (I hope not too sloppily) per WP:PERSISTENCE. The three articles I mentioned were published in August and November, 2013, and May, 2014. IMO this will clearly demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE. If it doesn't, we can continue this discussion. Thank you. Dcs002 (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you all know, I usually edit in small bits. I read a source and post info from that source. This means the article is going to look worse before it looks better. (Right now it looks like the article is relying too heavily on one article in the Washington Post that isn't the greatest source neutrality-wise.) I am planning to add a total of five new sources (the ones I mentioned above plus one from Politico on May 30 and a Congressional transcript from just two weeks ago) before I am done. I will post something here when I have finished these edits. Thanks for your patience. Dcs002 (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you all for being patient. I have finished adding content and sources. There are formatting issues and pleanty of tidying up issues left, but I think there is enough sourcing now to decide the issue of WP:PERSISTENCE. Ok, I am now hopelessly biased on the issue, but I think it passes that test. :) Dcs002 (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone is interested, I have discovered the proper way to make this type of request. See ((In use)). Put the tag at the top of the page in question. There are options to show how long you expect to be editing and why you have requested this. You can also tag a single section. The template updates the time of the last edit automatically. Dcs002 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This person is notable for his suicide note making a major difference; it exposed the VA's gross negligence, fraudulence, and disrespect of not only him, but many other veterans by the VA system. Although there had been previous whistleblowers at the Phoenix VA, none received significant public attention. The Arizona Republic quoted US Representative from Arizona Kyrsten Sinema: "Daniel Somers is the original whistle-blower of the Phoenix VA" (Friday, July 11, 2014, pages A1 and A16). His parents continue to press for systemic change in the VA system. For example, on Thursday, July 10, 2014, they testified before the US House Veterans' Affairs Committee and proposed a number of specific reforms (http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/somers-family-testimony-hearing.pdf). His suicide note also led to whistle-blowers speaking out about other VA hospitals across the nation. The fraudulent "secret lists" were then exposed. These lists had been used to make it seem that VA facilities were meeting their goals for timeliness of appointments; this led to administrative staff receiving bonuses.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananagramwinner (talk • contribs)
- Comment May I ask that participants in this discussion review the major changes made to the article yesterday and consider whether their !votes still stand as they are? I think the !votes are currently 7 to keep and 5 to delete (counting Gbawden's proposal for deletion as a !vote to delete), which doesn't seem like a consensus at all, but a new review of the highly revised article might result in a clearer consensus. Again, I don't know if there is a proper or formal way to make this request. I'm sorry I'm dominating this discussion, but this subject became important to me through this process, and I am very interested in resolving it clearly and fairly, even if the clear consensus is to delete. It should now be clear that the sourcing for historical WP:PERSISTENCE is roughly as thorough as it is likely to get (assuming Bananagramwinner and I were also reasonably thorough - the "first whistle-blower" statement that Bananagramwinner found ties this in to the larger VA scandal of 2014), so if this doesn't cut it, then so be it. I have never participated in a discussion involving single-event notability or persistence, so I don't know if these newer sources have clearly established the case or made it clearer that, if this is all we get, then it fails one or both tests. Thank you again for your tremendous patience! Dcs002 (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but retitle to Suicide of Daniel Somers. 90% of what makes the subject notable is their whistleblowing attempts/actions agains the VA. Giving some preamble that explains the lead up to the suicide/note, but not as a Biography of Daniel Somers. Hasteur (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move. This suicide was obviously notable due to the impact it had on the VA. For that reason I don't think WP:BLP1E applies here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 21:36, 28 July 2014 (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.