Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Richard Swanson (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article, especially after article improvements and the new sources found. It's especially notable that a few participants change their "vote" from Delete to Keep after changes to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Richard Swanson

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Minor flash-in-the-pan news of the wierd, rightly forgotten…except, of course, on wikipedia. Qwirkle (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Qwirkle (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Events, Football, Transportation, Oregon, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was on Wikipedia's main page today, under DYK. So, on one hand, there were enough reviews and checking at DYK for this to be approved on the main page. On the other hand, you want us to delete it as soon as its main page appearance is over. I think if it was notable enough for the main page, then it's notable. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice this is against Wikipedia’s own core principles. Wiki itself is not a useful authority for anything.

And no, this should not have been deleted right after it infested the front page; it should have been dealt with before that. Qwirkle (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a part of the DYK criteria. Articles getting deleted fresh off of DYK is pretty common. (Even GAN and FAC don't check for notability per se, and both have seen articles deleted at AfD.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete To quote the first nom, which was improperly closed: "minor flash-in-the-pan news of the weird." A human interest story from a decade ago with all the overage in that timeframe. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the editor who closed the previous discussion cited Wikipedia:Speedy keep#6 which allows for such a closure. Articles appearing on the main page shouldn't be tagged for deletion as long as they are on the main page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage since the immediate aftermath seems to be routine court reporting on the truck driver's trial, all by local papers. WP:NEVENT asks us to look for "enduring historical significance" or, failing that, "widespread (national or international) impact and [having been] very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". Neither of those standards is met here. While tragic, nothing seems to differentiate this case from many, many others of someone dying while doing something somewhat novel and then the resulting trial getting limited follow-up coverage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 06:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the potential for a much better article, although judged on current sources this would still be a delete. I'm persuaded by Govvy's link to this Grantland article, which is not currently cited, and which could easily be mined for several paragraphs of content adding both color and significance. That shows reliable source interest going beyond routine coverage.
  I am unpersuaded, however, by Oaktree b's argument that this should be scoped as a biography. Swanson was only notable for the record attempt and particularly for dying during it, and so per WP:BIO1E the article should be framed around that. It doesn't matter that his exact cause of death was routine; that's not how death notability works. There might be a case that this could be renamed to Richard Swanson's long-distance dribbling attempt or something like that, but that would effectively have the same scope, and in any case isn't a matter for AfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG in my view regardless of the event, also is this article suppose to be an biography? Wouldn't it be more correct to have the article re-titled? Also Upjav voted keep before the speedy keep, I would have thought it right to ping the guy. Govvy (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the tag, @Govvy. I'll review policy again per the responses to Maile since my vote was fairly similar to their vote. Upjav (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Death of X" articles generally boldface the person's name in the first sentence, per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES; that doesn't make this article a biography, and if it were a biography it would fail WP:BIO1E. It's an event, which makes WP:NEVENT (generally a higher bar than GNG) the controlling guideline.. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : I don't think his death is very notable (getting hit by a motor vehicle), but there might be a story to be told around his life and the attempt to dribble the soccer ball for a long distance... The event of his death isn't notable, but HE might be. As it stands, the articles are about his death, but they all highlight his attempt at the "record" for lack of a better phrase. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still confused by the delete votes, you have organisations like The Guardian, BBC, Sky News, and they are are not American publications covering the story, you have a load of sources from American ones. Then you have a really in-depth article by Grantland which is one year on after his death. There are loads of articles online about the event. so from my perspective it easily passes WP:NEVENT, so I rally am not understanding the delete arguments what so ever. Govvy (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable, his death isn't. People get hit by cars daily. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sourcing. Giant Snowman 19:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the issue. Notability is the issue. Mangoe (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:PIG. It is not remarkable to be hit by a car, there is only a picturesque context due to the fact that it was a person who was doing tricks with a ball. Svartner (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update. @Qwirkle, Mangoe, Oaktree b, and Svartner: I've now expanded the article with ~~491~~ 618 words of readable prose (~~+83%~~ +103%), mostly from the previously unused Grantland deep dive, plus some from the underutilized existing News Guard and Sports Illustrated cites. I'm not sure I'd call this quite the level of improvement as the canonical example at WP:HEY, but I do think the new version provides much more context as to why this death is not run-of-the-mill: The dribbling effort was receiving news coverage prior to Swanson's death, and after-the-fact coverage has included in-depth, non-breaking-news coverage by high-quality reliable sources including Sports Illustrated and Grantland, both of which articles were published a month after the fact (an eternity in offbeat-news time), with lingering coverage lasting over a year. I'm not going to say Swanson's was the most important death in human history, but I've at this point thoroughly convinced myself that this meets WP:COVERAGE's expectations of in-depth national and international coverage lasting more than a short news cycle. And there's probably still more that could be written about the death and trial; that just doesn't really change the notability analysis so I didn't focus on it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still see the same issue: all the coverage is right about that time. I'm not seeing evidence of long-term interest. Mangoe (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Sports Illustrated is a pretty good source, I'm not sure the rest are to that level, but we at least have enough for a basic article. I've revised my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Has the death received WP:SUSTAINED coverage or did it just receive coverage around the time of the accident? Alvaldi (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to all be around the time of the accident. Hard to find content that's more current. Upjav (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, if I posted one link above that was written a year after the accident, then no, it's not all at the time of the accident. Govvy (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy Sorry, must have missed that one. I am though only seeing the four sources from May and June 2013 (The Guardian, BBC, Sky News and Grantland), can you link me the one from 2014? Alvaldi (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They linked it in their comment above; it's the Grantland source. Though that does look like it's from June 2013? So maybe they linked the wrong thing, or misread the date. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
O, lol, I thought that Grantland was written in 2014 when I first read through the article! O well, anyway, there are sources from the trial which are a year later. Alas, do as you want. The way I see it, article still passes GNG. Regards. I also like the move title that was proposed too by Tamzin. I feel that would be a better suited title. Govvy (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2024 (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.