Suicide of Beranton Whisenant: There was some (mostly local) news coverage of the suicide in 2017.  If you look at the revision history, the page was created to promote disinformation: namely, false claims that that Mr. Whisenant was murdered.  As one short article briefly notes some far-right posters on "Reddit and 4chan" promoted this claim/innuendo.  WP:PROD was declined a few years back by a user spewing the same innuendo.  Neutrality talk 03:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The Newsweek coverage from a national publication suggests that this was a notable death, in part because of the false claims made about it.  "The Far Right's Fake News Story of the Week Has Hijacked the Tragic Death of Beranton Whisenant" .  Newsweek .  June 1, 2017.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think one Newsweek article meets the "significant, in-depth coverage" criteria.  And note that the quality of Newsweek took a nosedive since 2018.  This 2019 article from the Columbia Journalism Review details how Newsweek fired most of its senior journalists and embraced clickbait , "viral headlines," and SEO .  This article from 2020 called Newsweek a "zombie publication, whose former legitimacy is used to launder extreme and conspiratorial ideas."  There are very serious problems using post-2017 Newsweek stories as hooks for notability determinations.  Neutrality talk 17:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Newsweek is not the only Reference.  I have just put all the Key Facts and References that have been deleted on the talk page, before they are returned to the page.  This is very common, deleting all the References from the time of the event and then later someone asks the page to be removed.  Telecine Guy ( talk ) 15:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Political cruft, non-notable individual except for theories of his death.   When you read through all the sourcing, this was just one more unproven conspiracy theory that one political party tried to hang on Hillary Clinton and the DNC.  In that place and time, and even now, the evening news is full of candidates labeling everything a conspiracy with a trail that points to anyone who is on the opposite side of the continuing political divide in the United States.   It's the current thing, if you want to make the news, claim you are the victim of a conspiracy - and dead people can't complain when you drop their name into it.  — Maile ( talk ) 15:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep  1) One of few American federal prosecutors to die in office.   2) This deletion discussion ALREADY, happened in the past at the time the page was created in 2017‎ and 2021, and the vote was to keep the page (see #1).  Wikipedia has a problem, if pages can be asked to be deleted over 4 years after they are made and many have edited.   3) The page needs to be fixed (not deleted), the "Conspiracy theory" lasted only till the causes of death was finalized.  This fact was in the page, along with how it was found to be a Suicide, but these facts have since been deleted.  Having facts and good refs here helps the conspiracy theory to go away.  Telecine Guy ( talk ) 02:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to the closer: Please give this comment little or no weight in closing.  This comment doesn't even attempt to show significant, in-depth coverage.  That's because there isn't any.  Note also: (A) This user was the creator of this page (something that the user failed to disclose), and stuffed it with crazy conspiracy nonsense about George Soros .  (2) There was no "vote" in 2021; this is the first AfD of this article.  (3) Assistant U.S. Attorney is a civil service job, not an elected or appointed office.  The Justice Department has about 115,000 employees , including more than 6,300 Assistant U.S. Attorneys .  Some of those employees die: in car crashes ( [54] , [55] ), in avalanches [56] , or, as here, by suicide.  These tragedies generate routine coverage that does not mean the subject is notable.  Neutrality talk 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1) I do not know anyone in this event, I have never worked in Law enforcement or the justice system.  I do not live in Florida or DC.   2) Are federal prosecutors washing up on beaches all the time, is this the claim?  3) Personal attacks to get a page removed, how low can one go?  Telecine Guy ( talk ) 19:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Telecineguy I see no personal attacks, just factual observations.  Doug Weller talk 06:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Neutrality.  News of a murder plus one so-so source about conspiracies on social media.  Not enough for WP:NCRIME .  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This event generated much more than "routine" coverage and commentary in 2017, 2021 and today.  The story received national coverage through CBS News "Federal prosecutor found dead in Florida killed himself, police say" .  CBS News .  August 10, 2017.  and professional interest at AbovetheLaw "Federal Prosecutor Found Dead On Beach" .  Abovethelaw .  May 30, 2017.  Arguments that this event does not merit mention nor memory present as moral or ideological self-dealing.  — Kamenev ( talk ) 23:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Abovethelaw" is a tabloidy blog.  The CBS piece is a four-paragraph piece of WP:ROUTINE coverage.  And where is this supposed "commentary" from "2021 and today"?  I've seen no source matching that description.  Neutrality talk 03:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This attracted some minor attention from mainstream news due to his job, but the overwhelming attention is due to conspiracist nonsense that didn't even last.  Per WP:DUE , we have nothing to form a biography of this person outside his death & the conspiracies around it.  And there is not enough for an encyclopedic article about this event, because it's not even a significant conspiracy theory, just another random attempt to draw lines towards whichever political figures certain people hate.  That is not going to fly for an article here.  Even the "Keep" argument above by Telecine Guy states the "Conspiracy theory" lasted only till the causes of death was finalized .  That's the definition of a flash-in-the-pan, not a significant long-lasting event that would qualify for an article.  The creation of the article suffered from recentism , and now we're stuck cleaning up the mess.  The argument that it's a bad thing articles can be deleted over 4 years after they are made and many have edited is irrelevant.  We still occasionally stumble across articles from Wikipedia's early cowboy days that wind up getting deleted because they're just not suitable.  — The Hand That Feeds You : Bite 12:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On initial review this seems to badly fail SBST.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've reviewed the few articles in TWL and Newspapers.com as well and in my opinion this article the creation of the article contravenes clearly established policy, some of which also touched on in our notability guidelines.  Even if some of those policies may not necessarily apply any longer, I cannot see retention as justified.  It is not clear that the subject even has any credible claims of significance, though I do not believe pursuing A7 would be worthwhile.  Delete .  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 07:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SENSATION , WP:ONEEVENT , etc.  Wikipedia is not a gossip rag/conspiracy theory clearinghouse.  jps ( talk ) 13:25, 4 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete