Deletion of Ben Breedlove

Comment: Within  there is an example used that I would like to borrow with a different angle-Rodney King's article. The actual event was, of course, major; but equally important was the social significance of the event and the aftermath. It addressed an important social issue, raised debate and awareness (police brutality), etc. The events relating to Ben Breedlove also address important social issues (life after death and religeous beliefs) , awareness for his illness, inspiration, and something of a cultural phenomenon- Tens of thousands of teenagers affected enough to speak out and make life changing decisions. Teens weren't the only ones affected, but they are the ones whose world involves the most Internet communication. Internet personalities are as relevant to them as non-internet personalities were to us a decade ago. The "Evening news with Tom Brokaw" is now Youtube.Like it or not, that should be respected and that change in information feed acknolwedged
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: but provisionally.  I'm tempted to think this will eventually get deleted as a  biography, but there is simply too much noise about on the topic right now to make an informed decision on the matter.  The article is impeccably sourced and quite well written, so I do not see any harm in waiting (say) three months and having another look then
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: As a member of WikiProject Death I've gone through several articles about young people who became "notable" for dying for one reason or another -- usually murder or "bullycide". Several of them had been nominated for deletion. The ones that are kept have proved some degree of "historical" relevance -- meaning their death has on some scale shifted public perception about the issue relevant to their death. Establishing historical relevance takes time and this article was created too soon. As someone said above, currently we have a case of , though I must admit the coverage is impressive. —&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: While a sensitive situation, a Wikipedia article is a Wikipedia article. Per  and . ('''Secondary Comment''' - Keep arguments fail to detail Wikipedia policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NTEMP)

Comment: The article does not satisfy . This is clearly a memorial article, which is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, and the references are just a mass of sad eulogies following his untimely death.Revisit in 6 months, 1 year, 5 years if sentiment prevents deletion at this time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: per our actual policies, as opposed to all the glurge from single-purpose accounts and anonymous drive-bys. This is an obscure dead blogger who's getting a brief bubble of notability, a matter covered under |"Subjects notable only for one event" and #MEMORIAL|"Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (:WP:BLP1E||:WP:NOT)

Comment: per nom. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: per . The individual is Breedlove, the event is his death (unless anyone can put prove that Breedlove would be notable if he was still alive today). BIO1E states: "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event." Breedman's death, however tragic, is a minor event (he's received media coverage because of the touching nature of his story, not because it was important world news) so the only article that should exist is Death of Ben Breedman. But I would argue that even that article should not exist simply because this is not encyclopedic material. Lots of things get a sudden burst of media coverage, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic, which should be the determining factor for inclusion in an ''encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: The plethora of sources show that this topic clearly passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Surely  is in support of retaining the article - he's had substantial independent coverage from multiple sources.  may be relevant here, but that would only lead us to move to Death of Ben Breedlove, (which I wouldn't support as the coverage right now is focussing on his life and videos rather than just his death) not deletion. Just quoting policies does not an argument make
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a memorial site. , and a surge of reports because of a single event (in this case sadly his young death) - fails, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:NTEMP)

Comment: ndash; per MelbourneStar. Completely passes , ,  in their entirety
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:N)

Comment: I am seeing reliable coverage by multiple sources.  Even if someone argues that there are not enough sources to meet the requirement or that it fails BLP one event, this is an example where  would apply.  There have been over 370,000 people who have come to Wikipedia for information about this person.  Removing this page would be hurtful to the encyclopedia because the high number of people seeking information on Ben Breedlove would not get it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)