Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Sumner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. This is a perfect example of the difference between a news story and notability. This was a news story - but it's really not terribly notable. Single event notability is not sufficient for inclusion. - Philippe 15:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Sumner

Richard Sumner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Per WP:BIO and especially WP:NOT#NEWS, I can only find a few news articles relating to his death. There doesn't seem to be any WP:RS relating to his life or contributions to his field. Adamfinmo (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Adamfinmo seems to be obsessed with this benign article, for no very clear reason. I have worked with him several times to fix this article to meet his concept of Wikification -- you can check the history of the article to see his contributions.

The crux of this request is based on the attempt by Adamfinmo to control the contents of the article on List of unusual deaths. You may wish to check the History of that article to see his actions on that article, including his attempts to exclude a listing of Richard Sumner from that article. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Two leading British news organizations (including the BBC, arguably the world's most important English-language network) plus a British government report on the death -- the references seem to carry weight. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - notability can not simply be achieved by coverage of an unusual death. Grsz11 04:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If the above statement is correct, then 75% of the List of unusual deaths would need to be removed, since that list is supposed to constitute NOTABLE people who perished in extraordinary ways. There are very few famous people on that list. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Valerian, Aeschylus, Herod, St. Peter, St Lawrence, Henry I, Pope John XXI, Tycho Brahe, Rasputin, Bruce Lee, Alexander Wolcott, Chrysippus, Pompey, Cicero, Moliere, Francis Bacon, Innocent X ... Are we looking at the same article? Just those few are more than enough. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Celarnor Talk to me 06:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If we have an article on someone who became notable through an unusual death, why can't it be on the list? Seriously. This is stretching WP:ONEEVENT to unintended reach. (I have no opinion on this article, only on the list.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Although it is sourced death doesn't make you notable, even if it has received coverage; that would make you only notable for one event, which is something for wikinews. Celarnor Talk to me 06:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Under this definition, nobody in the 21st century list except Steve Irwin would qualify as notable, since they are known only for the manner of their deaths and not the accomplishments in their life. More than half of the 20th century list would also have to go, and we can cherry pick our way back through the centuries. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
And this is bad ... why? Celarnor Talk to me 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems to be a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. I'd also agree with the comment above by Ecoleetage - in the sense that the mentioned list indeed has some more non-notable entries. --Minimaki (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I plan to work with Adamfinmo to edit the List of unusual deaths article to focus primarily on notable historical and cultural figures. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: No indication that this is more than a news event. Was this death something that resulted in more half-way houses for the insane? Did it result in more suicide counselling? Did it result in a wild lawsuit? Did it result in laws? Do people refer to "not doing a Richard Sumner?" In other words, to be notable, either the life before the death has to have been outstanding from the rest or the death had to be culturally active, as those would be enough to require contextualizing in an amplifying encyclopedia article. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • weak keep The brief line about the career given implies that he might be notable at that--has anyone actually checked? DGG (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    comment That brief line is "Mr Sumner, at one time a scenic artist for opera productions at Glyndebourne, had suffered from schizophrenia since 1984." - so I guess he was the guy painting the backgrounds in some of their operas. And while opera critics would mention the intendant, director, composer, singers, and so on, I don't think they would usually mention this artist. --Minimaki (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Response If you are going to dis an article, please quote it correctly. The exact line from the article defined the late Mr. Sumner as a "British artist who was best known for his art direction and scenic designs for opera productions at Glyndebourne." He was involved in a lot more than painting pyramids on an Aida backdrop. Also, it should be pointed out (again) that Mr. Sumner's death was major news in the U.K. and was covered by the BBC. If that is not notable, then Wikipedia's concept of notability has become lethally peculiar. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


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.