Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Dean

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 no consensus. I see no particular consensus to delete this article. It is possible that it would be better renamed as the event, rather than the person, but that is not a matter for AfD. Enjoy yourselves at the article's Talk page. Joyous! | Talk 02:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dean

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. Sad that he died, but he isn't notable outside of the circumstances of his death or his famous brother. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was an American kidnapped and killed by anti-American guerillas. The fact that some of his brothers would later be notable is not enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of the Depth and length of coverage, [1], [2], the fact that his notable brother wrote and spoke about him; and stuff like this search of google books [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This would not merit an article if not for his brother. szyslak (t) 10:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that WP:NOTONHERITED is being misunderstood here. It reads: "Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. " It does not apply to topics that, as here, can be verified with coverage in many books - not only books about the notable brother, but books about the era and events in Laos/southeast Asia; and by accounts in every major American newspaper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing that given the ongoing coverage of this double political murder of these 2 young men in both Australian and American sources, the article might be best moved to a new title Killing of Neil Sharman and Charles Dean, with both names redirected to the new article. These were two promising young men, but careers were incipient at the time of their deaths, so there is relatively little to write about their lives, but their deaths have attrancted widespread, ongoing coverage which was particularly intense in the international media at the time their bodies were found and repatriated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good idea to me. FYI - I am the author of this article. I wrote it at the time Howard Dean and discussion of Charles Dean were every day events in the media. Seemed more notable then than it does now. :) Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY I did a little expand, source, only the tip of the iceberg of the sourcing that exists. I trust that editors returning or coming new to page will look a sources now on the page and run searches (I used search term "Neil Sharman" Laos) on terms that will reveal more sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there was lots of ongoing coverage from 2003 onwards. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Howard Dean, he mentioned him a lot in his presidential campaign. I think he passes WP:GNG though, maybe move a bit to Murder of Charles Dean? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note on sources that in addition to the enormous amount of international coverage at the time of search for and recovery of the bodies in 2003/4, there was press coverage at the time of the disappearance, in the years following, and in the years since 2004. Coverage was unrelated to Howard Dean and can be found in bout the American and Australian press. I have added some of it to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2016 (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.