Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crispus Attucks

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 snow keep. Clear consensus that Attucks is notable and passes the WP:SINGLEEVENT criterion. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 14:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crispus Attucks

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

Known for single event to which he was the first person who was killed . Fails WP:SINGLEEVENT also little is known or can be documented about his life. CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me he meets WP:1E. Within the policy it mentions Howard Brennan who is worthy to have an article because he witnessed the JFK assassination. To me the first person killed in the American Revolution would be important to. The article is well written and well referenced. There are also numerous refernces to him in popular culture such as songs, speeches, books, and poems. LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 01:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But he fails WP:SINGLEEVENT and little is known about him. What makes him notable? CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It's surprising that you keep asking this question, because it can't be the case that with the number of times you've cited the GNG in AfDs you've participated you're unaware of what the guideline actually says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article." Attucks has many dozens of books written about him. What the hell? Ravenswing 07:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its more a matter of opinion. However the article is well referenced and well written. Even if its debatable if he meets WP:1E there is no harm in keeping it. The article gives info on honors, his legacy, and him in pop culture. To me he is well worth an article, however I understand to others he might not be.LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 01:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but what of people who say wikipedia is a place for notable articles. to that what do you say? CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me he is quite notable, the first person who was killed in the American Revolution. That is pretty big to me. A simple google search shows numerous websites, and a large amount of content dedicated to him. With an article that has over 2,600 edits and a lot of effort has been put into researching, and writing it I do not think its fair to delete. Maybe to some people it is not as important, but to others it is substantially more important.LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 01:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LethalFlower. Attucks meets the guidelines for having his own article. — Strongjam (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under what guide? What makes him notable for having his own article? CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course. Per ONEEVENT, "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles". The Boston Massacre more than satisfies the importance requirement, and whether or not you consider Attucks to be just a "minor" participant (I don't), he is still very well known, to history buffs at least, to this day. Being the first (or last) victim of a major war seems to be a standard for notability: e.g. the much less famous Robert M. Losey and Henry Hadley (died 1914). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per WP:1E, if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the reasons stated by others, Crispus Attucks has been for many decades a widely recognized and honored symbolic figure, as described in the "Legacy" and "Popular culture" sections of the article, and this would be enough to support an article in any case. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Slamdunk Keep: Perhaps the nom is under the impression that ONEEVENT is the fundamental notability criterion on Wikipedia, trumping all the rest, as well as being confused about what ONEEVENT says; in no part of the guideline does it say "If a subject's known for one event, Wikipedia forbids an article to be written about him, whether or not he meets any other guideline." What it actually does say is: It's safe to say that the Boston Massacre was, with the probable exception of the Declaration of Independence, the single most heavily publicized event in America in the 18th century. It's also safe to say that Attucks passes the GNG by flying colors: never mind articles, he's had over a hundred books written about him. [1] Ravenswing 07:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was so surprised that this was nominated for deletion. I agree with the coments above.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Ravenswing, and I am struggling to WP:AGF with this nomination. Books about the man's life and his significance in history are easily found in GBooks with his name in the title, schools named after him all over the US, (two with articles here), etc. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if he personally is an entirely fictional creation, his role has since become totemic (Casey Jones springs to mind too). The lack of verifiable detail is a matter for editing caution, not for deletion of the topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2015 (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.