Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forrest Hayes

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 speedy delete. Speedy deletion under WP:G10 as a wholly negative BLP; BLP as defined per WP:BDP as applied to a recently deceased person with exceptional death circumstances (especially when these circumstances are the only thing in the article at all). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Hayes

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

This person seems to be notable only because he died of Heroin overdose. It might be a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Not notable enough for a separate article. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. We are not here to judge people or defame anybody. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Undo speedy, delete or merge. Is it possible to defame someone who is dead, by referring to news articles that have merely published a sequence of events that were reported by the police, as protected under the first amendment? Double check the Wiktionary definition of defamation https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/defamation . After doing a date range search of news articles, while he is reported as a "Google executive," he does not appear in the news ever until an obituary was written for him, making him fairly non-notable before death. Overdose alone does not seem notable, and apparently it has not have had a notable impact on the company's reputation either. Perhaps mention in some article somewhere just for the sake of not censoring the truth, but seems hardly notable in any article. --Makkachin (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you put yourself in the shoes of a family member? Wouldn't you ask yourself why WP made an article on a relative only to tell us about his tragic end and bad habits? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Otherwise anonymous fellow whose death seems to be the only thing notable about him. Google executive or not this article is in terrible taste, and I wouldn't even argue for an article about the event itself as the only sources are overheated cable news channels looking for a story in the dead of July to cover to death. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This individual is non-notable other than for being the victim in this tabloid crime of the moment. A Google search for pre-July 4 mentions of him reveals (other than misdated current posts) little other than a standard obituary in the Santa Cruz Sentinel soon after his death. The guy was a non-notable, non-officer exec at Google. (If the crime itself is ultimately deemed to be notable enough, include an article about it, and turn this page into a redirect.) BTW, ditto for the alleged killer - Alix Tichleman is not otherwise notable, either. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. and Iamcuriousblue. NQ talk 01:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Object Article will be expanded. Subject is notable. Is not an attack or defamatory. RobertBolan (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy Blanked (content visible from history or in a hidden comment) - Please only undo this courtesy blanking if AfD consensus is to keep or improve/clean-up the content. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salvidrim!, your blanking was reverted by the author of the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two wikipedia policies cited by Salvidrim! refer to Discussion/Talk Pages and Biographies of LIVING persons respectively. I removed the page blanking with the understanding that it was an error, but done in good faith. RobertBolan (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How convenient. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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