Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Burke

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Despite the large number of possible single-purpose participants, consensus is still largely towards keeping, under the rationale that ample signigicant coverage exists to satisfy the subject's notability. Further discussion of merging is welcomed on the article's talk page. Any apologies and regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Burke

edit
Brendan Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recommend for deletion as NON-NOTABLE I originally placed a Speedydelete tag when the article was first created, but noted in my edit summary after deleting the tag when the article was improved that I reserved the right to WP:AFD. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I did find some articles about Burke from before his death; here and here. They reference an ESPN article which I haven't yet located. Brendan's chief accomplishments appear to be (a) being related to a notable person; (b) coming out as gay, and (c) dying young. I have no doubt that he was a good person, well loved by his friends and family, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, and I'm not convinced that his accomplishments meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've gotta be kidding me (ie.: keep). Non-notable? This is getting wall to wall coverage in the New York market, let alone all of Canada...
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just under 1000 views today. "Non-notable"? Do you people live in a cave or something?
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't live in a cave, but I don't live in Canada, either. I'm open to the possibility that I am mistaken; that's why they didn't make me the boss of Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I'm just a little flabbergasted at the use of "non-notable" here. I just mean, it just seems that if multiple international news publications (in at least New York, probably the reast of the US, all over Canada, and in several places in Europe) doesn't meet some minimal bar of "significant coverage" then that leads me to really question why we bother even having a guideline about this sort of thing. I'm not of the school that we should never delete articles here, or that "not news" is wrong, or anything like that, but this also isn't my first brush with nominations that seem to have their heads stuck in the sand re: current events either.
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A bit torn about this one. He was some sort of notable, but probably not in a way to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. OTOH there is some reliable coverage about him pre-mortem, although this generally only covers the way he dealt with his sexuality. But yet it's not enough to consider him some sort of 'gay icon' to establish notability. noisy jinx huh? 23:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to the dead, I must note that the number of Google hits are surely due to the recentness of the shocking tragedy of the unfortunate young mens' deaths. Many of the hits are from mirror/vampire sites. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questiony suggestiony thing Even if this article is deleted as insufficiently notable on its own, perhaps the relevant content could be merged with Brian Burke (ice hockey)? His father is unquestionably notable, and Brendan's death is newsworthy more for its connection with a famous hockey player than for Brendan's own accomplishments. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that's a constructive suggestion... It may be worth thinking about, although my immediate reaction is that there's probably too much about it to try to squish into his father's article.
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs)
    I agree that it's too much of a unique story just to be thrown in there with his dad's article. How many people care about GM's families? That's a polite way of burying it. But if you type in "Brendan Burke" and it redirects you, that's certainly better than nothing.Theknightswhosay (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It could even be its own section, with a redirect from this article. In fact, I think I want to change my vote to Redirect and merge. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking things over, and I think that we could shoehorn the current content into Brian Burke (ice hockey)#Personal life. As a matter of fact I'm tempted to just go ahead and do it, but then I'm sitting here watching the game and drinking a beer (or 6), so I'll stick to relatively meaningless comments outside of the mainspace...
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support merging the salient data from Brendan Burke's page to his father's. But given the vandalism (see below) I suggest the page itself be deleted and SALTED, not redirected. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous IP vandal (User:216.26.223.50) removed the AFD notice. I restored it but let's keep an eye out. Perhaps someone could leave a warning notice to the offending party since my warnings have been deemed by other editors to be too harsh. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect per FisherQueen. We don't delete or create-protect articles just because they've been vandalized, but if there are problems after redirecting the redirect page can be protected to prevent further vandalism.Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What is the logic there? if anything if it was kept and repeatedly vandalized, a basic protection would suffice.Luminum (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it (merge). New Orleans is ahead, unfortunately!! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - Notable out athlete, famous father, and tragic death. This article should not be deleted, it is an important piece. kcflood (talk) 9:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete - One of the first out ice hockey players in public. With a father in this high position in sport and to stand up for his homosexuality is worth an article. 13:36, 8 February 20010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.116.52.104 (talk)

— 95.116.52.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wow, let's just make the life of a man well-known in the homosexual community disappear. This is so typical- we don't exist because you do not want us to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.62.48 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — 24.255.62.48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

— 68.127.171.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • There are plenty of heterosexual people who don't get Wikipedia articles either. This deletion has nothing to do with him being gay. His sexual orientation seems to be of greater importance to the people who want the page kept. Reach Out to the Truth 15:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This deletion has nothing to do with him being gay." Bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.171.234 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err on the side of cautious. Leave the page independent. It is/he is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.49.130 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE THIS PAGE AS IT IS!!! The young man deserves the respect of every human being for standing up for who he was and for having the courage to live openly and happily. This is a tragic event and he should be honored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.65.109 (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason for keeping an article under Wikipedia guidelines. You can say the same thing about thousands of people who have died tragically; that does not mean they meet notability requirements here. Pats1 T/C 16:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. he is certainly noteworthy as this has received coverage and his death was marked as such a tragedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.131.192 (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete - His orientation is the key to his importance. He's a rare gay athlete who had the courage to come out publicly in a super-"masculine" sport viewed as being homophobic and as having homophobic fans - even more notably because he is the son of a superstar in that sport, so he faced even greater pressures. He has been lauded as a role model in the gay community and for young (and not so young) gay athletes everywhere; the reaction to his coming out (both from his teammates and his family) also serves as a model. This was a significant and noteworthy event, covered in major mainstream news media like ESPN (article by John Buccigross), and he is one of an incredibly small group of athletes/people involved in mainstream pro athletics who had dared to go public with his orientation - this alone makes him worthy of an article of his own. Any other view is, I agree, anti-gay bigotry and nothing more, or at the very least failure to appreciate the enormity of his actions and the potential scope of the impact of those actions, as well as his role-model status, even after his tragically early death (which serves to further illustrate the importance of making peace with your loved ones while you can). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justacat66 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — Justacat66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It is not Wikipedia's job or place to specifically create role models, on either side of any issue. Pats1 T C 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This "deletion" issue is getting a great deal of coverage on gay blogs. With comments like "being gay or dying do not constitute notability" and flippant remarks about drinking/watching football while debating the deletion of a prominent young gay man's page, you aren't doing Wikipedia any favors. Basically it looks like a bunch of homophobic straight men are censoring Wikipedia because gay stuff makes you uncomfortable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.11.9 (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the Wikipedia guidelines you were referring to in support of your "keep" vote. The fact of the matter is, being gay or dying do not constitute notability per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. That's all I care about. I'm all for having an extended section on Brian Burke on his son, but the relevant guidelines do not support him having his own article. Pats1 T/C 17:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can tell that it is getting coverage somewhere given the number of unregistered users contributing. I would make mention that AfD debates are not a majority vote, nor are assumptions of bigotry a valid keep argument. (I would also mention that a person who assumes bigotry wherever he turns needs only to look in the mirror to find it). Notability is not inherited. Burke's notability in this case does not stem from being gay, but from being the son of a famous NHL general manager. If he was the son of a plumber in Columbus, his coming out would have been a local story, not much more. WP:BLP1E argues against standalone articles for people who've been involved in one event, which is why the merge suggestion is being offered - to put the important information in the proper article. WP:NOTMEMORIAL says that dying does not make one notable. These are all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Resolute 16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His notability has been established (see many references, above). The deletionists can't have it both ways - either we accept that he fulfills the criterion for notability (by any reasonable standard) or we admit that we are just deleting for the pleasure of being nasty. American conservative Christianity can't not be the basis for ignoring our policies.Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False dilemmas are not valid. Resolute 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - the athlete in question received huge amounts of publicity prior to his death on the very account of being gay - while this in itself does not constitute notability per se, the circumstances certainly do; ESPN and other agencies have given his situation considerable coverage as a person who has significantly helped to break down the barriers of homophobia in professional hockey, and addressed the ramifications elsewhere. Basic checks will demonstrate that his name is searched for with regularity, so he is no less deserving of a simple entry than anyone else, and certainly more deserving than certain topless models who seem to have Wikipedia entries. It certainly doesn't bother me that the individual in question was gay, but I get the impression that some people do take exception to that; to succumb to this sort of petty hatred may set a bad precedent for Wikipedia and its reputation as an inclusive informational resource. Attenboroughii (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You mean that a lot of people are alleging bias, a lot easier reason to parse than quoting how this article meets the requirements of relevant policies and guidelines. As far as your basic checks go, basic checks also demonstrate that Burke's been searched about a thousand times as often in the last week than for the previous year.  RGTraynor  18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Per above. I just looked through G-News archive myself (for articles before January) and it's damned scanty. I see nothing in WP:BIO or WP:N stating that "being publically gay" is a prima facie notability pass, and given WP:NOTINHERITED, there's nothing in Burke's CV that would earn him independent notability were it not for having a well-known father. I strongly recommend that some of the Keep proponents take the time to read the pertinent policies and guidelines which define notability; it is a common fallacy on Wikipedia to define "notability" as "I think the guy's important." That being said, I find the catcalling about bigotry reprehensible and disgusting. Strange though it may seem to some people - and I would certainly have liked to think better of registered editors - it's perfectly possible to apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines to articles without having an axe to grind, and furthermore there are actually editors who do so.  RGTraynor  18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There can be no doubt that the media coverage of his coming-out easily passes WP:GNG (why the media covered it is of course irrelevant). There is also no doubt that the media coverage of his death passes that same guideline. Since those are two events, the WP:BLP1E exception does not apply. There are no other relevant exceptions, so we can't delete or merge this article without violating our own policy. EdvardMunch (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first article in the sources section is a feature article of which he is the primary subject from a notable secondary source (ESPN.com). It is my understanding that this is the Basic Criteria that has to be met. -DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say that the nonsense that is being peddled by those who oppose merge/redirect (I oppose redirect also, just merge in my opinion) that those who disagree with them are conservative Christian homophobes is sheer stupidity and vitriol. We should begin closing this WP:AFD out. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would please request that commenters please take note of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and Wikipedia:Civility. A vote for keep, delete, or merge should be viewed as simply that, without any subtext or agenda. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. I don't think it's too much to ask. We don't need some first-time IPs, or even established users, heckling those who vote for a merge or delete in this discussion with "bigot," "homophobe," or "Christian conservative," or some combination thereof. Personally I think that's incredibly hypocritical, but I'll leave it at that. Pats1 T/C 20:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point, Pats1. I am saying that those who are clamoring to keep the article are accusing those who disagree of all sorts of things, particularly homophobia. Just read the comments above. I finally took umbrage and pointed out the vitriolic nature of most of the anti-merge/anti-delete "editors". Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I misread your post as you specifically using those slurs yourself. Pats1 T/C 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He played Division I hockey, which is close to enough on its own. Add in the widespread press coverage and I lean towards keep.--TM 19:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't play hockey. He was the team's manager. Pats1 T/C 20:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The individual clearly had a decent amount of press before and after his death and was relevant to his father's sports legacy, the realm of hockey, and the realm of LGBT issues. Merging with the father's page is an option, but would be seemingly off topic. Would readers view the subtopic and wonder why it's included there rather than in its own page?Luminum (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a question, not to fall into a "because X exists, Y should exist", but drawing parallels to Burke and his father's legacy, is there reason why Frances Bean Cobain should exist instead of being shoehorned into Kurt Cobain or Courtney Love? it seems like a similar issue. She's a high-profile individual because of her parents' fame, but still gave a few interviews, though mostly about her parents and their fame. If there is rationale to keep her page, then clearly Burke's own high-profile status due to his sexual orientation in sports, his given interviews and media attention, as well as his "inherited" notability "trumps" her "inherited" notability. If that si the case, then it would make an argument against merger.Luminum (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not valid per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Pats1 T/C 20:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...Thanks? That was my point (see above). The question was if the Frances Bean Cobain page HAS rationale for notability, what is it predicated on and does that apply to Brendan Burke. the question wasn't "Why can France Bean Cobain exist, but Brendan Burke not?" The question was, "Does something legitimize Frances Bean Cobain from being merged, and does it also apply to Brendan Burke?" If there are real reasons for why that page legitimately exists, then given their similarities, it would be appropriate to compare them and see if this page matches them. If not, it would warrant merge or deletion, and if yes, it would warrant a keep.Luminum (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I think someone should nominate the Frances Bean Cobain article for deletion. I know how I will vote. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the article's been nominated for deletion four times and 3 out of the 4 ended up as Keep with one reaching no consensus. Within the AfD's, there are a spattering of arguments for delete and merge, but it's always been a keep.Luminum (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to say I agree with the keepers on this one. While his notability might have originally been derived from his relationship to his father (i.e., not grounds for keeping this article), I DO think he has become a significant and often-cited case of an openly gay man in a sport that generally discourages open homosexuality. His name comes up quite often in connection to the place of homosexuality in sports and especially in hockey culture (like Yahoo Sports and the Blecher Report). He many not be a household name, but he certainly is notable in his own right in the world of hockey and, based on what others are saying, in the gay community as well. For that reason alone this should remain a standalone article--the characteristics that inevitably make him notable are not entirely derived from him being the son of Brian Burke. Geimfari (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you came back from a 26 month absence from Wikipedia and this AfD was the very first thing you chose to edit. Boy, that is some coincidence, considering how many other single-note voters we've had here already... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Beeblebrox: Given the timing (most Americans that aren't huge geeks like myself are watching the Super Bowl right now) let's wait a day. Remember -- "Never put off until tomorrow...", well you know the rest. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know, even though theoretically that was the right move, I'm regretting it now that we have all these users that have obviously been canvassed to participate here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, you would have been left with a consensus formed from 3 or 4 people or a consensus of members of sufficient number albeit lacking in actual editing background.  ::shrug::Luminum (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think, as people have said before with the news coverage and how often Burke's name comes up when homosexuality and hockey are mentioned together, that this should be kept. At the VERY least, it should be redirected to Burke's father's page with a subsection. Yuki Shiido (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep exceeds WP:ONEVENT per prior appearances in print and on tv and had what amounts to significant coverage, and also influence with regard to gay issues in sports. Hekerui (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out the following, and I hope everyone will pay attention: 1) The edit summary comment: "I re-entered info about Mark Reedy. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE, unless you want an ANGRY town coming back and editing it again" 2) The blatant canvassing averred to by, among others, Beeblebrox 3) The vandalism of my userpage, which led an admin to protect it 4) The vandalism of deleting the AFD notice from the Brendan Burke page after the WP:AFD was properly initiated For these reasons, while there are legitimate keep votes, I hold that the closing admin., whomsoever that is, must make sure that the (possibly fair-weather) editors who have perpetrated the above, understand fully that they cannot get away with this kind of behavior. Believe me, if they can get away with it once, they will continue. Again I understand there are legitimate keep voters there and I mean no insult to them. Thanks for listening. I have nothing more to add or say, and will await the result. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if the primary reason to "delete and salt" is to set an example, then I'd consider that a poor reason. Teaching rogue one-time editors a lesson by deleting an article that is the center of the controversy violates WP:POINT. The article should be kept, deleted, or merged on the basis of its notability only, no matter how inappropriate others have been about it or, and unfortunately, toward you. We're not dictators.Luminum (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Had to come back to respond: Luminum, if you read what I wrote I only said that the closing editor should ensure that the multiple violations that have gone on should not go unanswered. I already agreed to merge -- when it seemed the merge/redirect votes were going to carry the day, and suggested salting the page as a common-sense precaution to the inevitable vandalism that will occur once this AFD is over. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Brian Burke per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E. Notability is connected to father, and stems from one event. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Expand. The story of Brendan Burke's life and work was very considerably in the news before his tragic death which has also been a matter of great interest and media coverage in the United States and Canada. The article has only been up for three days and is well sourced. The subject of the article, despite being the son of a famous father, had significant accomplishments of his own in the area of achieving acceptance and equal rights for gay athletes, and the article is bound to be expanded in the days to come to include those. I think it is also fair to point out that the user who first added the AfD tag has a extensive record of ten extended blocks on his record for vandalism, disruptive editing, 3RR violations, etc, over a period of four years and thus should be given little credence as an arbiter of what does not belong on Wikipedia. Centpacrr (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Attacking the credibility of the nominator is not a valid reason to disregard a good-faith and reasonable nomination. Besides, the user hasn't been blocked since 2006 (the only block more recent that was temporary because of the username containing an email address; the block was later rescinded). OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I also thought this person didn't meet WP:BIO, and that the vast majority of the news coverage is related to his death and his famous father, not his own accomplishments. I think you'll find that my block log is clear; do my ideas deserve to be given any credence? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Yes, actually, I do think such an extensive record of blockings is a factor of judgement that is fair to consider in a matter such as this. Others are, of course, free to disagree. Centpacrr (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep....because the future will thank us for providing the most inclusive site of knowledge available. I also question the motives of the editor, like many. His affiliation with some organizations such as the anti-gay, anti-semitic terrorist group, the British National Party, I feel, hangs a huge question mark above his deletion request. Editors here on Wikipedia will cite all kinds of policies and rules all day on not questioning the editor, but the topic. It's garbage....completely utopian rules that are out of touch with reality. Anyone who's edited on Wikipedia for more than a day has come into contact with someone, even administrators, whose sole motivation for what, and how they edit is based on their personal beliefs. I believe that is the case today. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GnarlyLikeWhoa: Are you like the Generalissimo Franco, answerable only to God and history? We don't keep articles "because the future will thank us", particularly since none of us (including you) is clairvoyant,as far as I know. Were you referring to me as being affiliated with the British National Party? If so, you should know I am a leftist gay American Jewish atheist. You should be very careful in throwing accusations and allegations around. In my opinion you merit a block just for making that claim, regardless of whoever it was meant for. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC) (And no, that's not censorship by blocking).[reply]
Well, I sort of deserved that. On the one hand I Googled the prefix of your e-mail and found a profile for the BNP. That was my fault, I should have kept things in-house. However, on the other hand.... I'm wondering why you're mixing your shame on me with questioning whether I'm Franco and asserting that I, myself, deserve a block. Oh well.
In any case, yes, I "meant the future will thank us". The decisions we make now in editing and deleting will affect what future users see. It is important to set aside haste in order to see the bigger picture. Exaggerating by saying we're not clairvoyant is unhelpful to the conversation, in my opinion.
Anyway, I apologize for making the false accusation (Although who knows? I used to have this particular gay friend who he told me he voted Yes on Prop 8). GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I also thought that this person didn't meet WP:BIO, and I'm not a member of an anti-gay, anti-semitic terrorist group. In fact, I'm gay myself. Are we disregarding my arguments, too? It's okay if other users disagree with me about this person's notability, but maybe we could actually talk about that rather than keeping it because we don't like the nominator? - FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to FisherQueen I think you answered that yourself. It is probably because you do not appear to have an extensive block log or ulterior motives that no one has called your opinion into question, nor that of any other editor who has voted to delete and/or merge the page. It is because the user is affiliated and appears to have a history of abusing his role as an editor resulting in extensive blockings that the question is being raised by some contributors. Is it fine that the page is being scrutinized? Yes. Does it suck that it may have been done contrary to good-faith? Yes. Is there reason to assume that good-faith was not the intent? Yes. Does it mean that everyone who disagrees is being scrutinized, as you seem to be voicing? Obviously not, since again, their (and your) input hasn't been brought up or questioned at all.
As far as I've seen with the AfDs on similar pages this article meets notability guidelines. The individual's notability is initially predicated on his father's, which is not sufficient, but the individual made media attention for a high-profile coming out which is his own claim to notability, contextualized by it being in a major sport for which his sexual orientation is not generally accepted (re: own notability). The entire thing resulted in relatively large sports-buzz and buzz in LGBT circles. That is one event. Second event is that his recent death became high profile based on his projected career and the buzz from the first event. On top of that, the article is well sourced by third-party reliable sources.
Again, not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF, but at what point are we drawing a definitive line in the sand for when individuals related to other famous individuals who preceded them have established their own notability? Should Mary Cheney be shoehorned into a section under Dick Cheney? The big buzzz is that she's the seemingly "ironic" daughter of one part of a staunchly anti-gay political administration and has remained so since. Should Maya Keyes be shoehorned into Alan Keyes like Margaret Salinger is a redirect to J.D. Salinger? That in itself is interesting.Luminum (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in theory- if he achieved prominence with his public coming-out, then I'd support keeping this article. So far, in this long, long, discussion, no one except me has offered any sources that confirm that- I'm the only person who has offered sources written before he died. As I've said, I'm perfectly happy to be wrong... but if he was so much in the news before his death, won't someone find the sources that demonstrate that? It's not hard to find news articles about Mary Cheney (who has not yet died, as far as I know). I don't know anything about Maya Keyes, but I'm guessing that premortem writing about her is also available. I've been insulted a lot in this conversation, and so I'm feeling kind of defensive, since as far as I can tell I'm the only person who even looked for sources.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In truth, there was a short burst about his coming out at the time (WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E), the majority of which was based out of Toronto, since his father is a high profile and outspoken GM in that city: Toronto Star, Toronto Star, TSN, etc. Of course, he is always referred to as "Brian Burke's son". That, imo, is his notability. Not that Brendan Burke came out, but that Brian Burke's son came out. His prominence was entirely the result of who his father was, not what he did. Which, in itself might be the sad part of his earlier story - that his own courage was trivialized somewhat because everyone wanted his dad's opinion. Resolute 00:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those individuals weren't listed as examples of dead offspring of famous people, just moderately notable offspring of notable individuals. In my personal opinion, there was a lot of buzz about Burke coming out when it happened, followed by an extended buzz of commentary on it and homophobia in sports, etc. etc. Of course, I can only say that there was a buzz because it happened to be big news in sports and LGBT stuff, of which I am frequently keyed in. Obviously there are people out there who have never heard of him. Anyway, the articles about him were pretty easy to find, and it seems like another editor has posted them below.Luminum (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the first sentence, which didn't actually specify what Burke's accomplishments are or what sources confirm them, and didn't appear to be familiar with the existence of the notability criteria? Or is there another 'first part' that said something relevant to this discussion that I'm not seeing? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the only first sentence in my vote. If that part isn't good enough I suggest you look through every AFD request ever and ensure that people write a clear and concise reason for the vote. Perhaps you should ensure a Grandfather clause, perhaps a literacy test, or a civics test. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has gotten way out of control. Attacking other editors' credibility, and demeaning their opinions based on userpage party affiliation is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I will hand out blocks if this continues. Pats1 T/C 23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your comment is based on me looking at user-pages then it is unfounded because I've looked at nobody's page. Why should I? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how you obtained the information his/her political party affiliation. Using in an attack of any way, including one on his/her credibility, is a violation of WP:NPA, specifically ad hominem attacks, and WP:CIVIL. That is an easily blockable offense. Pats1 T/C 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The amount of news coverage about Brendan Burke is proof enough that his was a notable life and worthy of a Wikipedia article. Marshall Stax (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have changed my opinion, I now say delete after checking out some sources.Friuli (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Brendan Burke was covered several times in different media before he died, because of his high-profile (!) coming out story in the ice-hockey world. There were editorials, he was covered on TSN, ESPN, Outsports, and numerous blogs like AFterElton, Queerty etc. He was known to the 'gay community' in the US, Canada and Europe for his story and his life. His death was also reported in a lot of the same media. His father is a very well-known public figure in the Canadian hockey world. A memorial facebook page has more than 2000 members: I am very sure that he didn't had 2000 close friends. Furthermore, numerous blogs are already reporting that his wikipedia page is being considered for deletion because his notability is being questioned... Here are some links of Brendan Burke before his death: ESPN:[1], AfterElton:[2], Toronto Star: [3], TSN (youtube video): [4], OutSports.com: [5]Thorin (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. a sports star coming out is noteworthy, but somehow I can't help but think this move to delete is inspired by homophobia. Sick and sad in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McDanger (talk • contribs) 00:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC) (Note that this is yet another user who came out of a months-long absence from Wikipedia just for this AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • I think there's enough here for someone to infer it as a probable motivation, not an "automatic assumption." Unfounded assumptions are one thing, but being naive and ignoring indicators is another.Luminum (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you get right down to it, the keep argument relies almost entirely on emotion and a persecution complex. The merge (note: not delete) argument relies on policy: WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTINHERITED. Brendan's courage in coming out is certainly laudable, and something both he and his father took great pride in. Ultimately however, he was simply the son of a famous father. The press he gained both for coming out and for dying exists because his dad is a highly visible and outspoken general manager in hockey's biggest market. All the ad hominem attacks in the world cannot hope to challenge that assertion. Resolute 01:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probable motivation? Utter nonsense. The only "evidence" that could possibly contribute to such a conclusion is that this is a gay man who is of marginal notability. Unless there's some other evidence of bad-faith contributions here that I'm not seeing, everyone really needs to stop tossing around such accusations. Or is any AfD debate over a marginally-notable gay person going to result in cries of "homophobia!"? Powers T 01:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it was a response to tired bit of pseudo-wisdom that the user keeps throwing out there along the lines of "people who decry prejudice must actually be prejudiced themselves." I'm pointing out that the "homophobia" arguments are not coming out of nowhere. The original user's background and multiple blocks are causing other users to question the good faith of the AfD, and yes, WP:CIVIL or not, question his or her credibility and motivation. Simply pulling an AfD on an article does not constitute it as an affront to the article's content. Yes, that is a commonplace reaction and likely to happen when a blog spurs on its largely unaware and unaffiliated readers to rabblerouse on Wikipedia, and if it wasn't for the issue of the user, I would automatically dismiss it. In fact, based on this discussion page, homophobic or not, I question what the motivation is anymore, given that the user seemed to end their say on wanting to punish people and teach them a lesson rather than establish the lack of notability. A merge is a valid option, but at least in my perspective, the article fulfills notability. I guess it's only because we work with a fluid and purposefully undefined system with staunch views against setting precedent that the same AfD process can be applied to the same kinds of articles with the same issues and come out with separate outcomes.Luminum (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not being privy to what led to the blocks in the nominator's log, it certainly doesn't look as if they were related to issues of homosexuality. They were also, as noted above, four years ago, an eternity in web-time. Thus, I can see absolutely no reasonable basis on which to say "I can't help but think this move to delete is inspired by homophobia", and I, as someone who thinks a standalone article on this topic is unnecessary, strongly resent the implication contained in that statement. Powers T 03:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • People who decry prejudice without evidence most certainly do reveal their own prejudices. But, I suspect we can go in circles on that point forever. I've made my case using policy and while some on the keep side have cited policy themselves, most seem to think a rebuttal based on assumptions of bad faith, emotional arguments, WP:WAX, and WP:ILIKEIT is sufficient. The people making the latter arguments really need to take a look in the mirror themselves and consider their own credibility and motivations. Resolute 04:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon reflection, I've decided to strike my personal comments about the original user. I was caught up in a side arguemtn and some drama and I was wrong to pursue it. I don't have credible reason to believe that the intent was a violation of good faith. It's not constructive, especially when other on-topic points, that are not WP:WAX, WP:ILIKEIT, or predicated solely on emotion, exist and are valid reasons to keep the article. My apologies to Rms125a@hotmail.com.Luminum (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please - the nominator's past history is just that; ancient history now. He's been under mentorship for some time, though that's ended now and frankly, his conduct has been exemplary. I see absolutely no reason to bring this up here, other than its being a cheap attempt to discredit him. Please let's not do that - Alison ❤ 01:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article Brendan Burke is already an important symbol, not just to young gay people. His life experience is one for all families to learn from. Countless youth separate from families who refuse their lifestyles. That separation can be a tragedy impossible to undo if parent or child is lost or bigotry not overcome. The Brendan Burke experience involves the uncertainty, hesitancy and fear present as an individual recognized his own sexuality. The first large issue faced by him and others is the family reveal. Its outcome is critical. The lessons to be learned here are broad and affect LGBT persons and those involved with them. Why would anyone want to suppress a positive story of family support, one that can instruct others. Brendan's story is a touching example of the importance of families and the inclusive values. --Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but it is irrelevant here. Wikipedia is neutral. It does not partake in any sort of advocacy to any one side of any single issue. That's not what we're about. We're cold, heartless, and neutral. Wikipedia is not here to tell a story or promote someone's life or a specific cause. See Myanmar vs. Burma; some people wanted the article title changed to Burma as some sort of "protest" against the governement of that country. That was shot down and rightfully so. Of course, the article did get changed to Burma after all, but only on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME. Pats1 T/C 03:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Google News search for "Brendan Burke" returned over 1,000 news articles about him. The regular Google search returns 2.3 million web hits. Notability? Yes. Case closed--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and how many of those are related to his death? WP:ONEEVENT. Pats1 T/C 03:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are still these: The original piece, and following pieces during time 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, not to mention the numerous blog entries about the topic, which cannot be necessarily estanlished as notable sources. Even though link 4 and 5 are postmortem, their main point is not his death, but how his status as an out individual in the sports world affected gay athletes and brough about discussion of their place in the culture of hockey or sports in general. The original column from ESPN and links 1, 2, and 3, establish more than WP:ONEEVENT, given that the articles are either entirely focused on the "gay athlete/sports culture" impact and discussion, or divided between that and the fact that he was Brian Burke's son. I'm surprised that a bunch of people read these and determined that they only expressed his notability as Brian Burke's son. If anything that would be a superficial reading of the articles, which deal with the larger impact later in the article. Though the titles may appear to only indicate his notability as Brian Burke's son, the articles establish his notability away from his father and focused on his status as an out figure ins ports. Then you have the 1,000+ articles on his death. Would that be two events?Luminum (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject (Burke) became notable when ESPN published the November 2009 piece. That subject was picked up and discussed by numerous reputable sources and this has stimulated active discussion in other mainstream publications and numerous alternative or secondary sources. Reporting on his life and death has been broad. Hundreds of thousands paid silent tribute in NHL arenas. Canada's national TV network gave substantial coverage, not once but repeatedly (coming out, LGBT participation in high level sport, college and pro, participation by Brendan and his father in the Toronto Gay Pride event, death, funeral and discussion of possible changes in sport policies to eliminate sexual discrimination). As I read the WP notability document, there should be little argument.--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already stated. - Montréalais (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As of now the comments here reflect the following: Delete: 1 (the proposer), Keep: 22 (68.75%), Merge: 8 (25%), Redirect: 1 (3.13%). It would seem clear that this should be closed out at Keep and move on. Centpacrr (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember that afd is not a vote and that numbers are not the final tally, its the strength of the arguements which is what determines consensus. Secondly afd's run 7 days so there will be no closing at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I indicated that I support a merge (but not a redirect); I also strongly oppose the idea that canvassed votes, which may have materially compromised this AFD, should play any role in deciding how to close out this AFD. Of course AFDs are not ballots with decisive majority votes required. I would have thought any established editor knew that. There are six mostly anonymous opinions, although there may be more as they are hard to count due to their incoherence, and one indicating "The page should stay" by User:ElentariAchaea (13:18, 8 February 2010), which offers no argument or counterargument, and is as meritless as simply one-word voting, i.e. Keep or Do Not Keep. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, but so far the only editor out of thirty that have commented so far in favor of deleting the article is the one who proposed deleting it in the first place, and the only reason given is a claim of being "non-notable" which would seem to have clearly been refuted already. I suppose that this can be kept open for another few days, but to what end? Centpacrr (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, the fact that this AfD stirred up such an amount of controversy outside of WP, and that it caused so many non-regular or even never-before editors to post their opinion makes me think about the issue once again. Clearly, a "non-notable" person would not have received so much support. I've been reading quite a number of blog entries and tweets about this in the last couple of hours and, while I strongly resist the "homophobic" label that many of these quickly threw in, it's probably a sign of notability that this discussion was covered extensively. Sticking to my earlier Merge/Redirect vote, though, for the moment. noisy jinx huh? 16:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People need to remember that why it was given attention is irrelevant. The fact that he was Brian Burke's son was the reason he got the coverage to begin with, but once he got the coverage it is no longer relevant as he was the subject of that news coverage which now means he has his own notability and is not inheirited. Inheirited notability is someone getting a page only because the were the son of someone. Which is clearly not the case here. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, had he not been Brian Burke's son he would not have gotten most of the news coverage which he got, both for his self-outing and his tragic death, in light of his unsensational sports career. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right but that doesn't matter when it comes to the policies of WP:N and WP:V. All that matters is that he did get news coverage that is solely about him and is from multiple sources. Therefore he became notable in his own right. His notability may have started because of his dad but in the end he can stand on his own. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is universal support for that particular interpretation. By the way, I wanted to ask when the info at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Brendan Burke is going to be incorporated into this main page. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's seperate because this page is locked to IP and new editors. As for interpretiation, its not an interpretation its a well established fact, notability/verified clearly state the requirments are that the subject must be covered in multiple reliable sources where the focus is the subject. Which is the case for this subject. WP:BLP1E is an exception to WP:N however, this particular individual has had two seperate news bursts which means he no longer qualifies for the WP:BLP1E exemption. -DJSasso (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was big news here in Canada when he came out and appeared on TSN with his father.Juve2000 (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notable template at the top of the page. This deletion debate has become a huge talking point on the lesbian/gay websites, and it has been seen as Wikipedia versus the gay lobby. The real issue, as ever, is WP:GNG. Many people had never heard of Brendan Burke before his untimely death, and there is a risk of using his Wikipedia article as a memorial, which is dealt with at WP:NOTMEMORIAL. If Brendan Burke was not notable enough for a Wikipedia article one week ago, he may not be notable enough for one now.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability of an individual changes over time, and Brendan's untimely death became a factor that increased his nascent but growing notability considerably to a level that, as a whole, is more than sufficient for an article. While he came out to his family in 2007 and his hockey team later, his already broadly discussed "public" coming out when he was the subject of column on ESPN.com as well as on a widely viewed national TV broadcast in Canada on TSN the day after the ESPN article was published only happened two months before his death. The status of his father as a longtime notable hockey person notwithstanding, Brendan's public stand achieved much increased notability and broad public interest for in in him and his works because of the example he was setting for a great many people and for his efforts to address an important social issue upon which he already had achieved a significant and growing salutary effect. As DJSasso notes simply -- and absolutely correctly -- above: "His notability may have started because of his dad, but in the end he can stand on his own." Centpacrr (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "If Brendan Burke was not notable enough for a Wikipedia article one week ago, he may not be notable enough for one now." Is that taken from a WP guideline or did you make up a new one? Perhaps you could direct us to the appropriate source.--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the amount of sources and coverage on him before his death, I would contend that he was notable enough to have warranted a page before he died. Plenty of LGBT individuals, hockey individuals, and certainly a high number of Canadians, as has been attested here already, have been witness to his media coverage (coming out, famous father, presence in sports, opening dialogue on LGBT and sports culture, participating in Toronto Pride, tragic death). And I imagine those total more than the number of people who know famed physicist Dmitry Zubarev. Clearly, number of people does not perfectly equate to notability. Likewise, whether "we" have heard of him or not isn't a good measure of whether "people" have heard of him. Clearly a healthy number of Canadians, hockey enthusiasts and figures, and members of the LGBT community (described earlier as "vandals and voyeurs") have heard about him. Whether or not his sports career was "unimpressive" is a non-issue, considering that a notable actress or athlete can still be a mediocre actress or athlete.
Additionally, I'm finding that the "X would only be famous because of Y" is becoming a specious argument. Is Jenna Hager only notable because George W. Bush is notable if you really get down to it? Continuing to argue that Brendan Burke's notability is "only" from his father is false. Initial articles introduced him largely on the reputation of his father, but it is clear (if not by the article's content itself, then by later article titles during his life) that they focused more on his notability as an out sports figure and how that stimulates and impacts the discussion of gay athletes, hockey culture, and sports culture at large (all links posted above). Even some of the postmortem articles focus on him (titled "Brendan Burke" not "Brian Burke's son") and highlighting his notability (ex. "raised awareness by coming out as a young gay athlete" 4). Articles stopped referring to him as "Brian Burke's son" and then focused on him as Brendan Burke, and even in the articles that introduced him as such, the content wasn't only based on his status as the gay son of a famous hockey legend--it focused on what his presence means for out individuals in hockey culture and sports culture. Those articles throw out the argument that his notability is only divided between "being the child of someone notable" and "a shocking death." And ironically, given the coverage of the Wikipedia debate, perhaps it's now larger.
A merge would leave Brian Burke (ice hockey)'s page with a huge seemingly unnecessary section about what Brendan Burke's coming out did for the discussion of LGBT presence in hockey. It wouldn't be about what Brian Burke did for LGBT presence in hockey, it would be about Brendan Burke's contributions, considering that there's article coverage on his work speaking at functions about the topic 1 and articles using his status as an out figure to talk about LGBT presence in sports 5. Such a section would need to be included if a merge happened, but would result in a section concerning someone else's accomplishments on Brian Burke's page, which is problematic. That leaves us with deleting or keeping the page. I don't see any reason for the subject to be relentlessly and rigidly held to WP:N with the goal of deletion, when WP:IGNORE exists and WP:N itself suggests that deletion is a "last resort" and (as suggested above) when a notability tag at the top of the page would suffice (despite the fact that sufficient media coverage pre- and post-death exists), especially when references are solid and formatting can be gradually improved if it's less than ideal now.Luminum (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: A "huge" section? Nonsense. Like a number of others, you are badly overestimating Brendan Burke's deeds. He was a high school hockey player (which is not in of itself notable), did some broadcasting (which is not in of itself notable), was the son of a more famous man (which is not in of itself notable). Coming out is pretty much all that can be considered noteworthy, and a section on him could be handled in two paragraphs. In an article that's thirteen paragraphs long, that doesn't overwhelm the existing text.
That being said, something I've been thinking about: if people are so fired up about Brendan Burke, so much so that there's a massive canvassing campaign to save the article, could someone explain to me why the same people who are so eager to claim he's all that notable never bothered to write a Wikipedia article on him before four days ago? The media articles about him coming out were months ago now.  RGTraynor  23:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Sorry, "huge" was the wrong word here. Significant is what I meant. If you merge, you're going to have at least two of three paragraphs that address Burke's coming out, his advocacy, and his role in the LGBT-sports dynamic without saying much of anything that has to do with Brian Burke, except for the fact that Burke accepted his son. That doesnt seem bad in theory, but in terms of quality for Brian Burke (ice hockey), that would raise a flag for me to ask "Why is this here? This has almost nothing to do with him." As for the last point, the burden of real-world notability doesn't revolve around whether Wikipedia has a page or about it or not. That posits that Wikipedia editors are a representative sample of the regular world population and therefore would be abreast of every appropriate topic that should have a page, which I'll hazard a guess at saying that it's not. That would explain why nearly every character from Street Fighter has their own page and why Holden Caufield, for all of his signficiance in English literary study and reference, is at best a stub. Burden of proof of notability rests on adeuqate sources and coverage, which have been posted here and on the page. I also seem to note that you haven't responded at all to the fact that the content of the articles grant him notability beyond the string of factors you listed. His position as a highly visible figure within the hockey world who came out as gay is the topic that is discussed as the focus of some of the listed references. Some of the sources discuss his role as an advocate as their main focal point. It isn't that "he came out," it's the context within which he came out. If a gay couple discloses their relationship in the US, most likely it's not notable. But if a gay couple in Malawi disclosed their relationship, it's notable (as the case is now) because the context is that they're highly visible in a stigmatized social sphere where they'll be prosecuted, where being gay is illegal, and it's causing an international human rights issue. Following your logic, that wouldn't be significant or notable because "they're just a gay couple coming out." That's the same issue here: Brendan Burke isn't notable for "coming out," he's notable for 1) coming out in the sports world, 2) causing a significant discussion of the issue of gay athletes and homophobia in sports, and 3) being an advocate within that realm. If his relationship to his father and his death aren't notable, that's fine, but that still leaves the other three issues, which are notable enough to have resulted in mutiple articles from different sources.Luminum (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: You mean I haven't responded to your opinion that the content of the articles grant him notability, which following WP:BLP1E they would not have done.  RGTraynor  17:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:Well, according to specifics of WP:BLP1E, it doesn't fit the general description of WP:WI1E, which points out a one-event as generally having a definitive beginning and end, such as a high-profile marriage. Sources clearly demonstrate that he engendered an ongoing discussion about the place of out athletes and professionals in sports, and hockey most especially, as multiple sources stated. Additionally, according to WP:WIALPI, he fits high profile for media attention, having given interviews to TSN, The Star, and ESPN. He fits high profile for eminence, as he's been stated by sources to be the sole example of an out hockey athlete or professional and he gained far-reaching interest and coverage beyond local news, reaching throughout Canada and the US and within several realms of larger sports news, hockey news, and LGBT news. He fits low-profile for promotional activities and appearances and performances, none of which really apply to his situation. In my reading of those guidelines, based on the content of the significant media coverage about him and the discussion it caused and continues to create about a social issue, and not his father, that would move him out of WP:BLP1E. If I can site example and sources, which I have, it doesn't become my "opinion," it becomes my "argument," which you have not made an attempt to refute. If you can, I welcome it as it will ensure that all issues are covered. I'm merely drawing attention to that issue (since the casual use of the word "fact" seems to hit a literality button).Luminum (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Between his activism and high profile death there indeed seems to be plenty of reliable sources, enough to build a good article. -- Banjeboi 23:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge/redirect. The story is being widely discussed both in the mainstream media and online. David L Rattigan (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there seem to be more than enough reliable sources that confirm notability aside from the car accident death. — CIS (talk | stalk) 00:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know whether to go with the keep's or the merge's. I do have a few points to make. One, he fails the notability guidelines at the ice hockey project, without question. He never played professionally and never won a siginifcant amateur award (in fact, there's no proof he ever played collegiately, just that he was a student manager at Miami). He may still pass general notability guidelines. Two, as of this post, there are twelve references, eleven of which refer specifically to his death. That leaves one article written about him during his lifetime, the John Buccigross article from ESPN. Most of the articles on his death refer to the Buccigross article from December. Except for the ESPN article, this story is very similar to the Laura Gainey story. She was the daughter of Montreal Canadiens GM Bob Gainey. Like Brendan, she died young and there were many articles about her death at the time. So the only difference between Brendan and Laura is the Buccigross article. Does the Buccigross alone article make Brendan notable enough for a separate article? That is the key question. Patken4 (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Virtually all articles regarding Brendan Burke mention his father, Brian Burke, and his coming out would never have been deemed newsworthy in the first place if not for the fact that his father is so well-known in hockey circles. Once the news broke about his homosexuality, Brendan was rarely mentioned in the press again until his untimely passing occurred, and even then, most articles prominently mention who is father is, since the media only became aware of Brendan because of his famous father. His coming out and unfortunate death absolutely warrant a mention on Wikipedia, but an entire article seems excessive. Give Brendan a paragraph or two on his father's page, definitely, but a page of his own would be little more than a stub. Drpickem (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are actually multiple articles out there that reference Brendan. His coming out STARTED A DIALOGUE in the NHL that wasn't there prior to Brendan. Hockey fans and NHL players have had dialogue that is a direct result of Brendan's courageous coming out stories and his public appearances. Lou2u (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Just because some closed-minded, deletion-happy Wikipedians have not heard of Brendan Burke and his story does not mean it hasn't received widespread coverage within the LGBT community. I am so sick and tired of these "Delete Nazis" who deign what is "newsworthy" and what is "not newsworthy." I remember shortly after the Balloon Boy hoax, there they were -- all the trigger-happy "Article for Deletion" folks -- spewing passionate arguments for why we HAD to delete the article from Wikipedia. Now look at it - there's no debate at all and we have an extensive Balloon boy hoax page. I'm sorry - but Wikipedia is the most extensive, comprehensive collection of history and information the world has ever known. Just because a few people think that "In 50 years from now, no one will remember this event/person/thing" doesn't justify removing it from the database - if it was part of history, it should be contained in Wikipedia. Brendan Burke was a notable figure whose life and death made the news and affected a great number of people from different backgrounds and in different geographic regions.Danflave (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The original ESPN.com article establishes him as notable. The article is about Brendan, and not about his father. His funeral was mentioned in the hockey column in the NY Times and a moment of silence was held at a professional game for him. --Chrispounds (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark Bingham. Seems like a lot of the "GOTSTA DELETE!" folks are using the argument "He's only notable because he's gay and he died. If he didn't merit a page last week, then he shouldn't have one now." Well, guess what, people? There's an extensive article on Flight 93 hero Mark Bingham - also notable because he's gay and he died. Do you think there would be a Wikipedia page for Mr. Bingham otherwise? Where was his Wikipedia page a week before he died? Uh oh! Whaddaya think!? Should I break out an AFD tag on his page, too? Danflave (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WAX is a good read. -DJSasso (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, bud - but I've read that article and it states "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." If you read a few comments above this one, you will see my longer argument above. This was just something I wanted to add and emphasize. But thanks for the condescension. Danflave (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More than "gay and died". He's not some guy who was living his life anonymously and then he died and people found out about him. He was on ESPN and on a number of hockey shows in Canada. If I had known there wasn't an article about him WHILE HE WAS ALIVE, I would have written one.

What he did WHILE ALIVE is groundbreaking, not only to be out in a major-college-hockey (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they won the national championship) environment, but to discuss this on national (in two countries) news outlets (no pun intended), is completely unprecedented and quite notable. If he doesn't deserve a page, I guess Matthew Shepard doesn't deserve a page, because he was a complete unknown before he died. There aren't a huge number of gay kids in Wyoming, but still, there was very little at all notable about him.Theknightswhosay (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He never actually played for the hockey team. Its a misconception that he actually played hockey. He was only the manager. -DJSasso (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a misconception that he played professional hockey, though he was a hockey player before deciding to quit out out of fear over his sexual orientation and switch to team managing. Hopefully that gets cleared up here. Still, sources point to him as the only out athlete OR professional affiliated with the hockey program, and cite him as being the pioneer in that realm for the sport.Luminum (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to the father's article per Resolute (and his IP buddy) -- Vary | (Talk) 06:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: I'm glad it's you and not me. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I stopped commenting on here when it started looking like the article was going to be kept. Anyway, I just have a little to add.... Many are making the argument that his article is only here because of recentism--because he died and we're excited. I think that's just not true. While Burke's name is not in the mainstream, he means something to the little guy doing some research on out-athletes. I believe that keeping his article here makes for a very inclusive and complete set of encyclopedic information necessary to do research and to learn. Many disagree....for whatever reasons, we all have our theories. Anyway, that's all for me. Please, to those who disagree, be nice about a response, it's late, and getting riled up is unnecessary at this point. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This deletion debate has become notable in itself, partly because of a large number of stories in the blogs like this one. Many of these blog pieces have misunderstood what "notable" means on Wikipedia. It also unfortunate that accusations of homophobia have been made, since this was never an issue. Even if the article was deleted (which is now looking unlikely), the information about Brendan Burke's death would be merged into Brian Burke (ice hockey). The Twitter crowd has also been massively excited about this. Anyone for explaining WP:GNG in 140 characters or less?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree mostly. I can amen to the accusations of homophobia....I'm guilty myself, unfortunately. However, no sane Wikipedian can deny that it does happen here thinly veiled. Anyway, most times it doesn't happen. I, who is gay myself, have deleted whole sections and cast doubts over the quality of many articles in my Wiki career. Many of those have been LGBT-related topics, or even Conservative topics (ick!). I recently defended the deletion of Samuel Alito's head-shake at President Obama to the discontent of liberal Wikipedians. I was then practically declared equal to George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler. Anyway, while I have no doubt that some have come to this page from links on other websites, I can't help but think they're doing it because this person matters, because this person has been in the press, because this person has meant and done a lot for the community. That, I feel, meets the BIO standards. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Just my thoughts. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Incidentally, User:FisherQueen seems to have been taking lessons in debating technique from the Irish member of parliament Paul Gogarty.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, count the number of single-purpose accounts putting in their two cents here. Those sockpuppets should be disregarded. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, count the number of wikipedians that kept saying that Brendan wasn't notable, and also quoting WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, even after several people, including undersigned, showed evidence of his notability with links and discussions by the mean stream media since November 2009.Thorin (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The accusations of WP:SPA are one of many things that have gone wrong here. OK, some of the people who contributed may not be regular Wikipedians, but WP:BITE discourages making points of this type.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There were blogs, twitter etc specifically calling for people to come here and !vote. It is not really all that out of line to call a spade a spade. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but it's a non-issue given that it's been stated before that the result of the AfD is based on the strength of the arguments for or against and the evidence of established notability, not a consensus majority. Sure the one-time commentors or voters may be irritating to the larger discussion, but at best they're only that. If it were a majority consensus, then that would mean more of a problem here.Luminum (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Twitter/blog issue was mentioned in one of my earlier posts. After disregarding a few "keep" votes to allow for WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, there is little evidence of pro-keep flooding in the debate. The main problem here has been accusations of bad faith and personal attacks by the regular Wikipedians.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course there is little evidence of pro-keep flooding in this debate. Because the page was locked after the first number came and there was proof that blogs/twitter were being used to recruit people here. At the moment only established editors can take part. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • FisherQueen, I think that the problem that some users that support keeping the article are having is that Wikipedia has a history of deleting certain articles (that, to these users, are about clearly notable people and/or events) for reasons that seem trivial to the aforementioned users. I have had to stop myself from making emotional responses to individuals during this discussion. I DO follow hockey. I KNOW who Brendan Burke was; I was deeply moved by his story. One of the reasons he DIDN'T go further in the sport was because he felt he could no longer HIDE his sexuality. There has never been an "out" pro hockey player or coach. There has never been a FORMER pro hockey player who has come out. Brendan's eventual coming out started a dialogue about homophobia in the NHL that wasn't there before Brendan. YES, he was only notable for being his father's son before coming out and giving interviews, but AFTER he certainly became notable on his own. I am NOT from Canada. I do not know his family or any of his friends (which if you look at earlier comments you made seems to be part of the criteria for knowing who Brendan Burke was). I DO know that he was notable, and that his coming out and subsequent interviews changed the perceptions of hockey players and fans about gay people in relation to their sport. To me, that makes him not only notable, but laudable. Lou2u (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what's a REALLY GOOD WAY to make whatever POINT it is you are trying to make is to USE LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS to make it clear that you are RIGHT and anyone that disagrees with your CAPITAL LETTERS must be WRONG. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've always preferred random links to other articles for no apparent reason. But hey, that's just me. Patken4 (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheeses Christ, Beeblerox, do you need to be negative? Lou2u felt the need to use capital letters because Lou2u felt the need to us capital letters. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I don't have any personal connection to any of the people involved, as a gay Torontonian I'm probably still at least a bit closer to this story than many people here. I'd have no objection to a merge if that's the final consensus, but it's also true that the story of his coming out and the more recent tragedy both garnered entirely too much press to simply dismiss him as non-notable. While we all obviously tend to look for certain specific markers of achievement when assessing notability, when you get right down to it the core criterion of notability is that the topic has been written about non-trivially by multiple reliable sources, not necessarily that the person met a checklist of specific accomplishments. The simple fact here is that even though he was young and hadn't yet accomplished enough to be listed in an encyclopedia under conventional criteria, he was a person who became a public figure by speaking out on the very real and very encyclopedic issue of homophobia in sports. He did garner a sizable volume of international press coverage in a wide variety of media. And he did become enough of a public figure that his death was news. It wasn't treated as a garden variety "not-famous son of famous person dies" story, either by the media or by the public — it became a big story because he had become a public figure, not just because his dad was. Notability guidelines which spell out specific markers of accomplishment are not infallible, which is why they're guidelines rather than policies — when a person has garnered as much press as Brendan Burke did in both life and death, that press in and of itself makes them notable whether you can check off specific boxes in a specific notability guideline or not. And the question of when an article gets created relative to a person's death is not, in and of itself, a useful criterion for determining notability — any article on Wikipedia, whether the topic is living, dead or inanimate, gets created when it gets created, period, and therefore needs to be assessed on the merits of the content, not the datestamp on its initial edit. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearcat makes what seem to me to be convincing arguments. Does anyone still dispute notability?--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFD discussions are generally kept open for a week. There are some limited circumstances where the debate can be closed early, but they generally require either absolute unanimity or demonstrated proof that the nomination is explicitly contrary to Wikipedia policy in some way. While I do support keeping this article, it doesn't meet those criteria — so as an administrator I wouldn't have been willing to pre-emptively close this discussion early even if I hadn't already !voted. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I merely wonder if we've beaten out a consensus or do some editors still argue for deletion or merging with another article?--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe that it remains open because even if a consensus was met now, other editors have the opportunity to contribute for either side, since it isn't a compelte consensus until there was sufficient time for individuals to debae it (i.e. the 7 days). The AfD still has the opportunity to reach people beyond those who have already given input here, including those who might bring additional valid arguments in favor of a merge or deletion.Luminum (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: The only peacock term I can figure you're referencing is the "pioneer" comment, which was a verbatim term from two sports news sources. Within the direct quote, the context is given: "in a sport that has never had an out athlete." The page content comes from the sources themselves, but in case they are genuinely being twisted by POV, can you explain? Also, what are the specific peacock terms you feel are on the page?Luminum (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the volume of pre-death notable coverage for Brendan was absolutely influenced by who his father is, as others point out, I don't think the intent of the notability guidelines is to denigrate those whose accomplishments are coloured by significant genealogy, and would otherwise be notable (albeit to a lesser degree, but notable just the same). TheBigSmoke (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is typical of recent event reactions. Everyone is all passionate about keeping the article because this poor guy is at the top of the news. Let's wait a year and try again when more time can be spent on sober reflection of notability. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The whole article and controversy surrounding it carries a heavy dose of recentism. Page should be deleted now and opened for recreation in a few months, if anyone still cares. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. So the fact that his death was recent invalidates the content of the articles written preceding his death? Is his role as the first out professional in hockey going disappear with time and interest?
Actually, looking at the arguments highlighted as examples of recentism and movements for deletion, the argument appears that notability doesn't disappear. And actually, whether this article is rewritten in three months or three years won't change the content and implications of the sources used about Brendan Burke (per WP:Recentism, see Jennifer Wilbanks and the article's deletion debate).
It also won't magically "unmake" him from being the first out hockey professional during a time in which there never was (and as of now, still isn't) an out figure in hockey, in tandem with the notable issue of homophobia in sports. Maybe the "time fades all things" argument would work if Brendan Burke was a basketball player or professional coming out after John Amaechi, or rugby and Gareth Thomas, but he isn't—he's the first professional in hockey, and that position isn't going to be undone by time. If the examples from WP:Recentism show anything, it's that articles that are predicted to have "flash in the pan" notability wind up standing the test of time, particularly the example with Jennifer Wilbanks. If the argument here is "will anyone remember this in ___ years?" it's unanswerable. Technically every article will fall under candidacy for deletion if notability is subject only to collective memory (and of whom? Wikipedians?) Will anyone remember Mary Kay Latourneau, Paris Hilton, or Gabourey Sidibe in 60 years? Does that mean that to find out, we should delete their pages and wait a while to see if a Wikipedian, of all people, finds that he or she "still cares?" That's one hell of a litmus test of notability, right there.[[Luminum (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the argument that claims the article includes many peacock terms now withdrawn? The claim seems to be unverified.--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: w/o prejudice to a new AfD after 6 mo. if warranted, this discussion is a waste of time at this point. Also, since the page is semi-protected, i am sure a ton more 'keeps' would have appeared.--Milowent (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Those who argue for the retention of this article on the basis of media interest have missed one very important point. Every headline includes "son of Leafs GM" or "son of Brian Burke" which just goes to prove that his notoriety came from being his father's son. I'm unable to find any stats for him on any Hockey website so he should not be here on the basis of being a hockey player. Sure there are lots of references on Google and Yahoo searches but most of these refer to other people named Brendan Burke, notably the comedian. As for coming out as others have said many people come out each day and this is not a reason for inclusion in Wiki. Why did he get involved in Hockey in the first place if it is so homophobic? Again I suppose one can put this down to who his father is. Articles should not be written or kept in Wiki simply for the purpose of promoting Gay Rights. Were this to be done for Hetero Rights the Gays would be on the warpath! Williamgeorgefraser 12:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs)
Reply: This argument has already been refuted above. In short: the headline may say "son of", the articles themselves are in fact high-lighting Brendan's influence on hockey culture, not his father's. Furthermore, not every headline had a mention to Brian Burke, so the first part of your second sentence is simply not true.Thorin (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Williamgeorgefraser, did you actually READ the article? You ask a lot of questions that were answered in the article. Also, on the preceding page you have made allegations that the only reason Brendan came out was in an attempt to become famous. You also imply that the purpose of this article is to "promote homosexuality". Lou2u (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since his coming out how many other gay players have come out? Surely if his coming out is such an important matter in the Hockey world we should have names.If there are no others then that means either he was the only one (unlikely) or the others rightly reckon that because of his background he does not represent them. How can he then be a symbol for gay players? If in the future one or several players come out then he has his place here but for now he is only talking for himself.Williamgeorgefraser 21:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs)
I do not entirely follow your reasoning. But as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a blog or political magazine, we must look at other work and create from those pieces an encyclopedia article. So the coverage in the 'real world' shows someones notability, not our own thoughts about the matter. Please look at Wikipedia:ORIGINAL and Wikipedia:NPOV.Thorin (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thorin, the whole reason we are having this discussion is because Wiki is based on people's thoughts about the matter. If this guy is important in other players lives it is because he has shown them the way to tell the world about their homosexuality. How many other players have told us they are gay? If the answer is 0 then he's a bit of a dud squib. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is really a straw man. Trailblazers, especially relating to social issues, are seldom publically followed immediately by others in similar situations no matter what those situations may be. Brendan Burke's public coming out only happened about two months ago. What is notable is that he vastly increased the public awareness of a significant social issue. As with "same sex marriage" and "gays in the military", somebody has to be first to begin the long process. That is notable in and of itself, and that notability is more likely to grow with time, not diminish. Susan B. Anthony was not that notable when she began her fight for women's rights in the middle of the 19th Century, but her work helped lead to the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment seven decades later in 1919, and with her face on a US Dollar coin in 1979. Can we really say that Brendan Burke's notability already is insufficient to at least deserve a few kilobytes of html hosted on the Wikipedia server? Centpacrr (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Never played professional (or college) hockey, only notable for his father. If it wasn't for his father being famous, no one would have even hear about him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ample news coverage. [9] ESPN is quite major, and the article says they gave him an interview. Dream Focus 22:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is now amply sourced and Burke's notability is established by coverage in a number of mainstream news sources. This deletion discussion itself was covered in a news story here. Gobonobo T C 00:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the subject was not actually an athlete (except briefly in high school), and not notable in his professional life. His only points of notability are that he is the son of someone famous, and he is gay; neither of those, alone or in combination, is sufficient to justify an article. Doc Tropics 05:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to have significant media coverage, so I honestly don't know what the issue would be. Pretty clearly meets WP:N.

matt91486 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brendan_Burke&oldid=1220468562"