Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrett Swasey

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. Opinions are divided about whether this is a 1E case or whether the sources suffice to convey notability independently from the event in which he died.  Sandstein  19:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Garrett Swasey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:1E. Article should not exist - has already been moved once and should probably be salted. If not deleted, should be merged with 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep' - He was a champion Ice Dancer prior to his becoming a police officer. Masterknighted (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was a junior national champion. That's apparently not good enough, by WP:NSKATE criteria. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Then he was a hero police officer who died in the line of fire and the two put out together certainly add up to a notable profile as not a one event persona.Masterknighted (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Hero police officer" is not a label Wikipedia editors assign to an individual. He still falls under WP:1E. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. If dying on duty makes a cop a hero, these are also American heroes. Googling a small sample of them finds no Wikipedia articles. There are a few bios in Category:Police officers killed in the line of duty, of various quality and at least one up for deletion. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While he may not be notable for a single event, the combination of his junior national championship and his tragic death, pull him imho across the notability line. gidonb (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As another editor already noted, a junior national championship does not meet notability criteria per WP:NSKATE. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And two not-quite-enough points do not combine to make one that is more than enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, as I said "While he may not be notable for a single event, the combination of his junior national championship and his tragic death, pull him imho across the notability line." gidonb (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they really don't. Still 1E. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See comment below. The number in WP:1E is one, not two! gidonb (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But a non-encyclopedic second event doesn't make them not a 1E. If the second event isn't something that would get a person into an encyclopedia, then they haven't gained notability for a second event. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Yet the event is encyclopedic. It was in the encyclopedia well before the killing of the Garrett Swasey with the name of Garrett Swasey as a red link inside. [2] It has been suggested that for international events, the gold medal winners would be notable, also if they won the gold medal in the juniors. Because WP unjustifiably sets Luxembourg and Liechtenstein equal to the United States and the Russian Federation, national events in the latter should be considered the equivalents of international events in other nations. [3] Even if you would not accept the strong logic behind 2 (I hope you do), it would still bring the accomplishment of the Garrett Swasey awfully close to being notable just based on his national skating championship. [4] It has been suggested below that 2x0=0, which is mathematically true, but the zero is false. 2x0.75=1.5, drawing the article clearly over the notability line. [5] The golden medal in the national championship is actually the first event, not "a second event". Please do not stare too much at the events of the day. It is untrue that there is no strong logic behind WP:1E, it just isn't applicable in this case. 1 equals O-N-E. gidonb (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness I am going to correct my own point 1. The ice dancing was missing from the article 1992 U.S. Figure Skating Championships and someone added it today. Hence it has the finalists and not all contenders. This notable event was there. I'll put the table below again, as it has been hidden (and some of the stuff there deserves to be hidden). gidonb (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ice dancing

InedibleHulk, they may or may not combine to WP:N. As you will see in this discussion, everyone is going to weigh this differently and different conclusions will be equally legitimate. gidonb (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are often crapshoots. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Often they are, then often they aren't. Do you have any substance to add? gidonb (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Friends, fellow editors wikipedians please allow me to rephrase " Police officer who died in the line of duty protecting innocent lives during a politically charged multiple casualty fatal event Masterknighted (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the notability of Garrett Swasey draws from two distinct events:

• 1992 U.S. Figure Skating Championships
• 2015 Colorado Springs shooting

and, more general, the associated careers in ice dancing and law enforcement, clearly WP:1E is irrelevant here. I suggest that the nominator will either withdraw this AfD for lack of rationale or will try to establish some rationale behind the proposed deletion. WP:1E applies to one event, not to two distinct events. gidonb (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two events, and his role in each is small. His equally significant dance partner has no article, nor do the two other people killed in Colorado. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. These individuals are actually known for one event! gidonb (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing off-topic discussion - Please do not modify

And if one of the dead is later discovered to have placed second in a local beauty contest, that second factoid won't bump them up to notable. Neither does winning a junior championship. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] I'm waiting to see if anyone connected to the shootings won a pie-eating contest 20 years ago, that will qualify them for an encyclopedia article, won't it? ;-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] That's weird as hell. I had initially typed "pie-eating contest", but replaced it with beauty contest for the nicer connotations. You're scaring me, man! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Lol! Too funny. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] I do not mind a little humor, but all this is awfully disrespectful to the slain officer, his family, and community, and to other American sportspeople who won golden medals in national competitions. See table below. Please remember what we are talking about and keep civil. gidonb (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Ice dancing Rank Name CD1 CD2 OD FD 1 Christine Fowler / Garrett Swasey[2] 1 1 2 Cheryl Demkowski / Sean Gales 3 3 Kimberley Hartley / Michael Sklutovsky 4 Rachel Lane / Tony Darnell 4 4 Gidonb, no one is being disrespectful of the dead. Humor is a good thing, even after an event such as the shooting. Remember: Wikipedia is no place for humour. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] No one will remember points that s/he disagrees with. A lot of folks would take offense by your comments and those of your friend. Even if this article would be deleted, this discussion remains, and would not add dignity to Wikipedia, to put it very mildly. gidonb (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Cripes, no one is being disrespectful regarding the victims or the seriousness of the article subject. This is a deletion discussion, not the article itself, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Please, drop it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] [1] You know very well that I do not suggest creating a memorial. [2] With respect to the essay you quote, it would be easier to drop your lack of respect for the subject if you gave some indication that you actually understand my point. [3] With respect to notability, in my second comment I will show how Garrett Swasey (and Christine Fowler and many others) are notable -or near-notable at the very least- by logical application of skating notability criteria. [4] The AfD was rationalized under WP:1E which does not apply to two major events. Therefor the AfD lacks basis under our policies and should be withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Regarding point 1: You are telling those using humor in this AfD we should be "respectful". Your very words suggest this AfD and its associated article(s) are deserving the same attitude and respect as a memorial. Regarding point 2: I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. Regarding point 3: Swasey fails WP:SKATER and remains a WP:1E. Regarding point 4: WP:1E definitely does apply here, and I'm not the only editor to recognize this (see other comments that also support this article as a WP:1E. This AfD will not be withdrawn. Allow me to add a point 5: Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Thank you,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] [1] Not just at this AfD or dead people. The problem can be with a recently dead person, but is equally problematic with articles about WP:BLP. Bad humor and disrespectful comments, frequently about careers, including distasteful comparisons, are an ongoing problem at Wikipedia. Specifically in AfDs and on article talk pages. Jimbo has asked us all to work on this and I am sure many others have raised the problem as well. It's a major source of grievances. [2] Written in clear English. [3, 4] BIO1E doesn't apply to two events. The 1 here stands for O-N-E. gidonb (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Bringing up Jimbo for the win? Nice try. Please drop the stick, the horse is beyond dead. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sure, why not. I vividly remember him raising the issue in the early WP years! gidonb (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] See? This is what happens when someone brings a fucking dove to a business meeting. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep, merge or redirect - Swasey is mentioned at 2015 Colorado Springs shooting, and his article should therefore be kept, merged or redirected to the article for that incident. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is redirected, will the recently redirected Christine Fowler automatically link to the shootings? That would be weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant point. The article on Christine Fowler should never have been redirected to Garrett Swasey, as both dancers participated as equals. gidonb (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-redirected her to the skating championship article. Still not quite equal, if her partner redirects elsewhere, but better. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a fine action! You and I can perform as equals, for example, in a musical duo, then we move on, and then one day you are notable and I am not. C'est la vie! gidonb (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. Doesn't meet notability guidelines for ice skating or independent of the event in which he died. Valid search term though for a redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. His skating career fails WP:SKATER, while victims of a notable event are rarely notable themselves (WP:BIO1E). Basically, 2 x 0 = 0. WWGB (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. A standalone biography is not warranted here, because a junior figure skating title isn't something that would have gotten him into an encyclopedia in and of itself — which means that he is still a 1E. But there's enough plausibility as a search term to support a redirect to the place where he can be appropriately discussed, which is the article about the event. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. A brave man and a tragedy but this article does not qualify as a standalone as @Bearcat and others have pointed out. Rarely is there an inherent notability (Wikipedia-wise) for victimhood alone. Quis separabit? 23:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 1992 U.S. Figure Skating Championships. Why can't we remember the good times instead? Is it because we didn't have Internet in 1992, or that figure skating doesn't appeal to most humans? At least he did something there, not just had something done to him. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The discussion to which of T-W-O distinct events (plus associated careers), for which Garrett Swasey is notable, this article may be redirected to, illustrates very well why bio O-N-E event is totally irrelevant in this case. gidonb (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - he's now notable for two events, being a national champion in skating first —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As other editors have already noted here: he wouldn't have met GNG for WP:NSKATE, so no, he's not notable for two events. He wouldn't qualify for GNG because he's a 1E. 0+0 still = 0. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have to be notable via NSKATE if he qualifies via GNG. The overall body of coverage spanning his life is sufficient. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the number of events involved in this situation which constitute encyclopedic claims of notability is O-N-E, because one of the T-W-O events you're singling out is not something that would get a person into an encyclopedia. Which means BIO1E does apply, because the second event isn't a noteworthy event, meaning there's no 2E-making thing to even really consider. Bearcat (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BIO1E is for people who were part of O-N-E major event. When someone is part of two major events and associated careers, other policies apply. Wikimandia suggested that WP:GNG can provide guidance for people with a diverse career who have been successful and have been noted before being murdered. A golden medal in the national championship in a federation the size of the US, where skating is very popular, and an associated skating career, next to a law enforcement career that also gets some coverage, does carry weight. As does being murdered in a high profile shootout. Just not enough for an article for that one event. Take the murderer for example. Totally fails WP:BIO1E! gidonb (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BIO1E is for people who were part of O-N-E major event. Yes, that is correct. And the number of major, encyclopedia-article-earning events which this person has been involved in? O-N-E. A junior figure skating title is not an event that gets a person into an encyclopedia, and is not an event that turns 1E into 2E — and no amount of capitalizing O-N-E and T-W-O is going to change the fact that the number of encyclopedia-article-earning events that this person has is O-N-E and not T-W-O. HTH, HAND. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specific notability guidelines are more rigid, but do not trump the GNG. Several articles exist that attest he was well-known as a skater. It can be assumed he had sufficient coverage as a skater with the typical articles you'd expect of any junior national champion/Olympic hopeful. GNG is the standard by which he qualifies. Charles R. Doty is an example of this type of article - he utterly fails WP:POLITICIAN but he qualifies via GNG. You see how that works? —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And since all of the sourcing here is dated 2015, exactly not a single syllable of it actually demonstrates that he ever actually got over WP:GNG as a skater. You see how that works? Bearcat (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true - there is a 1995 newspaper article as well. Him being mentioned in a book from January also attests to his notability pre-shooting. It's reasonable to assume even more coverage exists of his actual career from offline sources, since not all newspapers and magazines are archived from the 1990s. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! gidonb (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNG cannot be met by assuming anything about what might exist somewhere — it can only be met by actually doing the work necessary to show hard proof that the required level of coverage does exist. The subject-specific inclusion rules are the ones that leave a bit of room for assumptions about what the media are generally expected to cover, even if the article is inadequate — GNG can only be met by sources that are already sitting directly in front of us. Bearcat (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I can work on this later this week. To a closing person: please do not close the AfD too soon so we will have sufficient time to further research notability. gidonb (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than enough extensive, high quality sources now to cover notability under WP:GNG and WP:INDEPTH! Plus a range of 14 15 years. gidonb (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The good news is that we agree on the principle. Now since the notability of Garrett Swasey draws from two distinct events:

• 1992 U.S. Figure Skating Championships
• 2015 Colorado Springs shooting

and, more general, the associated careers in ice dancing and law enforcement, WP:1E is irrelevant here. gidonb (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the notability of Garrett Swasey does not draw on the 1992 U.S. Figure Skating Championships, because a junior figure skating title is not a notability-conferring event. So 1E is relevant here, and no amount of saying otherwise is going to make it otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument basically fails the little that we agree upon because you apply 1E twice even though we agree it is for one event. When you have a series of events and diverse careers in the public eye, binary logic does not apply. It can apply for one event and we agree (per policy, not necessarily above) that we usually round the derived notability down for that one event. For Swasey and other folks with diverse careers in the public eye all events and career facts should be considered and weighed together. Not by 1E or binary logic for that matter. One can still come to the conclusion that it just wasn't sufficient to keep, just not by 1E. gidonb (talk)

Basically resolved above. This part of the discussion was pushed downwards. gidonb (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Not notable enough for his own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. Good guy, but not anywhere close to having his own article and we're not a memorial. DreamGuy (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Even if it is a junior national championship (think of being the ace pitcher or MVP on a championship-winning Little League World Series team), it is a potential feeder to the Olympic Games. It is nationwide in the United States. This might not be enough in itself, but even if the manner of his death (an act of terrorism) is not enough in itself we see two realities that push him into the category of notability. Neither his athletic achievement nor being killed in a terrorist crime would justify a page for him (note that we do not have pages on every death in the September 11 attacks)... but put those together and one has notability. Without the junior championship in ice skating he could be simply mentioned in the page on the terrorist act.Pbrower2a (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. Bad enough that some people think there is justification to prematurely create an article on the shooter, now they want to prematurely create an article about the victim of foremost attention? He's not notable outside of this one event. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why the rush to delete or redirect this article? Garrett Swasey's funeral won't even take place until 12/04. Scheduled funeral service speakers include Colorado's Governor Hickenlooper, the Mayor and Police Chief of Colorado Springs and the Chancellor of the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs. Over 10,000 people are expected to attend the funeral service and/or the following processional to the burial grounds. The processional itself might qualify for a Wikipedia article. Garrett skated with Nancy Kerrigan as a child, coached dozens if not hundreds of aspiring ice dancers over the past 16 years, was a co-pastor of his church and was loved and respected by 1000s of Colorado Springs residents. Not all of this is "notable", but this is still a developing story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.5.111 (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2015‎

— 71.211.5.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closing editor The above IP has no edits other than the above comment and their IP geolocates to the city in the article subject resided. Possible COI with the above !vote. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are you trying this discredit one kind of opinions this time? That the person behind the IP has a conflict of interest with a dead person? Maybe you can explain a bit more? gidonb (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it is perfectly acceptable for an editor to point out that a contributor to an AfD has no or few edits except this one, since it does inevitably raise questions about neutrality and motives. Most serious editors do work elsewhere on the project before contributing to AfD discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the nature of that "interest"? Why does the fact that the IP is from the same geographic environment as the deceased (if true) make this particular opinion suspicious? Isn't it likely that people from the same geographic environment visit this page in greater numbers and people would access less as a function of distance (and in a grid more again as a function of population density)? gidonb (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the relevant bit is that this is the IP's only edit! Now, I don't know about you, but before I started editing seriously I didn't even know what an AfD was, let alone contributed to one! And that was a fair time after I registered. Yet here we have an IP contributing to an AfD as their first edit. That always raises questions and there is nothing wrong with pointing it out. There's absolutely no need to start challenging Winkelvi over it, as it is standard practice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you honest answers and the fact that you try to defend Winkelvi's edits. My concern why Winkelvi would raise the geographic proximity as a major source of concern for this specific opinion goes unanswered, as does my question of the possible "interest" at hand, and my concern that this nominator engages or tries to discredit almost every person/opinion that happens to dissent with his specific opinion on this page, on their talk pages, through unjustified reverts, etc. I do have some questions also for you. Doesn't everything about this person's edit say novice? Let's look at the facts: this IP has never been used before, none of our WP concepts is used, no wikis, s/he doesn't even know how to sign! Isn't the template at the top of the Afd'd article with explanations and links also supposed to enable readers (that then become new editors) an option to provide their opinion? Doesn't this person, who apparently knows very little about Wikipedia, provide us with valuable knowledge about events in the Colorado Springs community? Why is this opinion then immediately flagged as suspicious for the closing editor for its geographic location, for its newbie-ness, and totally unclear conflicts of "interest"? Personally I see a lot of virtue in our low thresholds, especially also in this case! gidonb (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And since I did not answer this bit: like this person and you, I gradually learned and many many years and edits later, I am still learning. I applaud people who have the courage and the curiosity to find an AfD page and to leave their novice opinion or their opinion that is well based in our guidelines. I think that it is all good! gidonb (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:CRIME and WP:GNG. Clearly this article could not be deleted as per these guidelines right now.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How on Earth does this person fit either alphabet soup?DreamGuy (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy, how on earth should BabbaQ know that he has been asked a question if you do not link his name? And while I'm at it, I will also link WP:CRIME and WP:GNG so you can look these up yourself! They are not alphabet soups! gidonb (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete As per WP:1E. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The relevant guidelines for this AfD seem to be WP:INDEPTH (interestingly not mentioned before, but very relevant to the entree), WP:GNG, and WP:CRIME that all clearly justify keeping this article. When somebody dies under tragic circumstances, I also think instantly of WP:1E, makes total sense to think of this guideline, however this guideline is really for people who are (or rather are not) notable for O-N-E event and does not seem to be relevant to this article because of the multitude of events, the length, and in particular the depth of the coverage. As pointed out by the last IP editor, the dimensions of the coverage and events only start to be clear. For this reason I would have personally liked waiting a bit with starting this article, but, now that it is here, keeping seems to be the only reasonable way forward given our guidelines. gidonb (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The 1-event argument is false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How? Why? DreamGuy (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was already a champion skater. Maybe you missed that part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Junior Champion once. Overall, placed 13th. Does not meet WP:NSKATE, therefore, his brief skating career isn't enough for notability. So, yes, WP:1E does apply. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, you keep trying to argue with everyone who disagrees with you and tells you that BIO1E (as in one E) cannot be applied twice or more and these opinions are getting more plentiful. Not without reason. If a person has a diverse career you need to look at the appropriate notability guidelines. Not just keep hammering with the wrong guidelines. That's why I suggested that you work on the rationale or withdraw this AfD. Your premise is wrong. Maybe the article still isn't notable also under applicable guidelines (theoretically that would be possible), but even to make that case you start from the wrong end! gidonb (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you keep ignoring the thing that's been repeatedly pointed out to you in response, which is that because winning a junior skating championship is not an event that constitutes a valid notability claim under our inclusion standards for skaters in the first place, it also is not an event that can turn a person from a 1E into a 2E. It does not count toward how many E's the person has — so he is still a BIO1E, because the other E is the only one that counts as an E at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! No, I do not ignore anything! I keep responding and explaining that 1E is one E. Such guidelines are there for a reason. I will explain once more since it still did not resonate yet with all but the tables are definitely turning. Right now I am out of state on business, so for once I will keep my response short! ;-) Once I'm back home more text... gidonb (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do ignore something. 1E is one E, nobody ever denied that — what you keep ignoring is that there is no second event that counts as a notability claim at all. A person cannot cross the line from 1E into 2E if a second notable event doesn't even exist to constitute the 2E. It doesn't matter how many non-notable events you can add to his biography; if there is only one notable event, then he is still 1E regardless of how many other non-notable events the article includes. The article can list 100 different events from his life, but he's still a 1E if only one of those events is something that could potentially get him into an encyclopedia for it. Which is why your constant bleating that the number in 1E is "o-n-e" and not "t-w-o" does represent ignoring what's being said to you; for him to be a 2E instead of a 1E, there would have to be a second event that could confer notability at all. But there isn't. A non-notable event cannot magically turn a person from a 1E into a 2E, so he is a 1E because there's only one notable event to consider. Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not home yet, but I think it is important to get everyone aboard. Potentially, Swasey is notable for all the important events in which he participated, stand alone and combined. If you are not willing to examine that potential, your are doing injustice to WP and yourself. Three of these four events have Wikipedia articles, hence notable themselves by community consensus:

1. 1992 U.S. Figure Skating Championships - since the US and Russia are not the size of Andorra and Liechtenstein, the junior national title should be considered here for notability just by itself. The scales of these nations should be considered, given the huge interest and population size of both and be considered the equivalent of international titles elsewhere. Notable by WP:NSKATE.
2. 1995 U.S. Figure Skating Championships - another achievement that was noticed in the press at that time, and combined with the title brought a figure skater author in January to write in a book this year that Swasey and his partner were "prominent" ice dancers. Notable by WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG.
3. 2015 Colorado Springs shooting - the extensive and indepth national coverage, specifically of Swasey within the event, makes the subject notable by the standards of WP:NSKATE, WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:CRIME, and WP:INDEPTH.
4. The Funeral of Garett Swasey - does not have an article and hopefully will not get one, however probably the largest in the city's history, speakers and coverage in the local, regional, and national press galore, direct broadcasts, hence by itself probably notable, and definitely makes up for another important event through which the article should be positively judged through INDEPTH and GNG. Notable by the standards of WP:NSKATE, WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:CRIME, and WP:INDEPTH.

The bottom line is that by consensus Garrett Swasey is notable for five of our guidelines and it takes only one of these. In addition, the application of the guidelines, that are mentioned by the nay sayers, has been consistently refuted by many here, with good reason. gidonb (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The overall test of these five would of course be WP:GNG. Bearcat, if I understand correctly, at least until the explanation above, you still have some concerns about Swasey's notability under NSKATE and BIO1E. I do not understand how you -or anyone else for that matter- wishes to make the case that Swasey is *not* notable under GNG! Are the publications and television networks that have covered him not important enough? Is he mentioned not often enough? Is the coverage within the articles and other items not substantial enough? Please explain how you wish to make that case! gidonb (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect - Subject of the article is not independently notable from event. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources suffice to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources are there and he also came 13th in the adult championships, if 5 seconds in one match of pro soccer qualifies you then the junior win, adult placing and coverage of his death push him over WP:GNG. GuzzyG (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GuzzyG, your premise is incorrect. 13th in adult championships and winning junior championship does not meet notability guidelines for skating per WP:NSKATE. This individual is still a WP:1E and does not meet WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WV, see question below under Dcpoliticaljunkie. gidonb (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The ice skating title combined with the extensive coverage of his death are more than enough to make him notable enough to have his own article here.Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dcpoliticaljunkie, a junior championship does not qualify for notability per WP:NSKATE. This individual is a WP:1E and does not meet WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WV, can you please explain why Swasey would not meet GNG? Are the publications and television networks that have covered him not important enough? Is he mentioned not often enough? Is the coverage within the articles and other items not substantial enough? gidonb (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WV, I disagree. I think it meets the coverage is substantial enough to meet the general guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 December 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.