Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandenn Bremmer (copyvio)

Brandenn Bremmer

A talented 14-year-old who appears to have committed suicide. Well, yes, but Wikipedia isn't a local newspaper. Non-encyclopedic. -- Hoary 12:08, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

• Keep. It's interesting. Robinoke 12:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• If all that's written is true it's remarkeble enough to keep. Being young or locally famous doesn't always exclude someone from Wikipedia. Mgm|^(talk) 14:08, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• This was covered by several news outlets including the Washington Post [1], and is quite an interesting story. Keep. ed g2s • talk 14:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• International news reports - Guardian (UK), New Kerala (India), The Scotsman (obvious...). Borderline notable prior to death for being a musical prodigy it would appear. Not sure I personally agree with the newspaper's view that this is that newsworthy, but I do occasionally have the ability to concede I may be in a minority, and I suspect this is one of those cases. Weak keep. Average Earthman 14:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of prodigy presented. A 15-year old kid who died last week isn't notable because it makes the local newspaper. Has a CD which was quasi-self-released. I say "quasi", since it was released by his mother, in the same business in which she self-publishes her books (they are listed on Amazon with sales rank around the 2 million mark). Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines, for being the non-notable child prodigy of a non-notable authoress. "Interesting" is not a valid inclusion criterion. Chris 16:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I was unaware of this bogus novel policy that articles are required to pass inclusion criteria. Perhaps you wanted Nupedia - David Gerard 17:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Just because something fails deletion criteria, doesn't mean it should automatically be kept. Remember that many good articles that may have met deletion criteria have been kept, and are now useful. Why shouldn't it work both ways? Chris 18:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Aren't encyclopedias supposed to "interesting?" Robinoke 17:17, 19 Mar 2005
    • Not first and foremost, no. Chris 18:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, made the news - David Gerard 17:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)