Talk:Dawn Brancheau/Archive 1

Notability in question

So far, this individual is notable for one reason and one reason alone: how they died. If that's the case, then it should be included in the discussion of the subject that caused the individual's death. There's nothing here that cites anything about the person's life or provides for their notability prior to their death in February 2010. Notability should be established or it should be merged as described here. --McDoobAU93 18:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about her but the event in which she died in definitely notable, maybe the article should be changed to "The death of Dawn Brancheau"?*Treker (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The more common approach would be to add her information to the article to which she would be most connected, Tilikum (orca), as this is the animal involved in her death. The animal is much more notable than the victim, considering its history. --McDoobAU93 19:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right.*Treker (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I support merging this information to the Tilikum article and redirecting Dawn Brancheau there. Non-notable person other than being killed by a much more notable whale. TheBlinkster (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Not much merging is needed. Most of this is already at the Tilikum article, and what little is left can certainly be added. All the pre-death stuff is unsourced, making this more of a memorial fork than a substantive article. --McDoobAU93 14:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with merging an article about a human being with an article about an animal. If that make me a humanist, well, so be it. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, You may disagree, but the fact of the matter is that there is nothing inherently notable about Dawn Brancheau that is not already discussed in the Tilikum article. This article is just a repeat of the Tilikum article.--JOJ ^Hutton 11:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Brancheau may or may not be notable but the fact that she is a human and Tilikum is an animal is a ridiculous argument why her article should be left.*Treker (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was being tongue-in-cheek when I misappropriated the term "humanist"; I still believe this is a discussion best left to an WP:AFD nomination. (If none of y'all can figure out how to do that, I'm even happy to walk you through it, er... if I can remember how myself.) However, I maintain that because she was a SeaWorld representative who appeared, in living color, on CNN and in other media, she was already at least vaguely notable before her death; and afterwards her death was at least in part the impetus of a notable documentary (not to mention yesterday's decision by Sea World to cut off their captive Orca breeding program). It's not like she was just some random tourist who slipped and fell in the tank. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you hope to propose with an AFD. There is clear consensus here that this should be merged with Tilikum, since her death related to him is the only one event that makes her even slightly notable.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. Or have you not read my comments to that effect? -- Kendrick7^talk 17:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus does not need to be unanimous. JOJ ^Hutton 17:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, but a blank-and-merge WP:Consensus should go through the right channels; three wolves and a sheep doesn't represent a consensus. Please take this matter to WP:AFD, which is the proper forum for this sort of discussion. I assure you it's not a trap. :) (Seriously though.) -- Kendrick7^talk 18:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added the article for AfD so we can get a consensus there.*Treker (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

request for comment: Mode of death / public context

Hi, @*Treker: In regards to your redaction of the proposed text, "The way in which (keyphrase bolded here for visual impact) she died has had effects on SeaWorld safety, spurred a documentary film, and impacted legal statute.", I think your edit summary (...essentially just says "See these short sections underneath? They exist") is missing the point. I suggest to you that the language is not a non-denotative placeholder as your edit summary suggests (and even if it were, what is the exact issue even then?). Instead, I suggest that it specifically and telegraphically connotes that it is not her death per se, but its mode and public context, that are spoken to in the sourced paragraphs that follow. I have looked at the sources and I find the proposed language a proper encyclopedic reflection of their meaning and intent; I also assert that subverting this sourced meaning has the article read rather differently, in a more banal way that is inconsistent with a neutral evaluation of the sources. Maybe I can make my understanding of the sources slightly clearer by saying that NPOV is not banality here - her mode of death was factually enough of a "drama" that the post-mortem events followed in strict consequence, and not as mere chronologies. Please let me know if you have further comment(s), as otherwise I will add back the proposed text or some equivalent at some point, once I have thoroughly considered the situation over some reasonable period. FeatherPluma (talk)

P.S. Dawn's death turns out to be the "tip of the iceberg". There had been numerous previous serious trainer injuries, including Alexis Martínez's death at Loro Parque 2 months prior. This is what OHSA knew, and had also "forecasted" in 2007. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I knew pretty much everything about Brancheau before this event with the exception of the law impact, which you have done a good job of expanding, so don't try to scold me, I still didn't feel like the article was notable enough to keep but If you look at the deletion page you will see that I commented that I had reconsidered my position and agreed that it should be moved to Death of Dawn Brancheau.

Also, be very careful with claiming some NPOV, I have absolutely no agenda except making wikipedia better, if you look at the edit history you will see that my main contributions have been to add in references, and I don't think that 1 month is particularly much time, so no I don't believe I'm "over invested" as you said.

I removed the sentence because it added nothing since anyone who looks at the article can clearly see that her death had impacts, this is an encyclopedia and information shouldn't be spoon fed to people. People are capable of reading the headlines of the sections if they need a summary of the situation. I did not imagine that removing a silly, short, poorly written sentance would create such a big fuzz. But be my guest add it back if you belive it is nessesary.*Treker (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @*Treker: I am sorry if I was offensive. We are here to maturely discuss the issue at hand, and I fully agree with you that we both want to improve the encyclopedia. If my language got in the way, I regret that, and I apologize again. However, please take a moment to think whether the potential NPOV that I pointed above is really a personal criticism of you (- it most definitely is not -), or was a point of clarification about unintentionally missing the point. To repeat, NPOV can be inadvertent. I did not, and do not, assert in any way that you have a COI or overt agenda. I have no COI or agenda either. My point above was that in my opinion the pre-existing tone of the article without this addition is unduly bland in comparison to the sourcing. I haven't examined your edit history, and I don't intend to - I assume it's not relevant (nor is mine) BUT I have indeed read all of your AfD input including the most recent. Your first edit summary interaction with me in the article, however, in my view did frame the issue politically, removing, "Her manner of her death has had several effects." with the explanation, "Clunky wording...". I think that's subjective and political, and you might want to think why. That said, I will postpone adding back what you feel is spoonfeeding, in recognition of your spoonfeeding argument. I will roadtest by getting input from several readers before arriving at a decision, to see if the desired sense of strict consequence is so readily evident or not. Happy editing. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

P.P.S. The version I began with used language and phraseology that I feel implied that her death was a "once-off surprise", "just something that happened". Regardless of intentionality, that implication is verifiably wrong and in my opinion it sorely needed correcting. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@FeatherPluma: I'm sorry if I was being a bit defensive. I would also add that maybe I'm over sensitive to what I perceived as bad wording or grammatical error since I myself was taught very intensely and strictly how to deal with my own dyslexia, a condition which I must embarrassingly admit has made itself evident in far to many of my own edits on several articles. I'm sorry if I let that get in the way of my judgement of the situation but that being said I still believe that the sentence is largely unneeded since I don't feel it adds to he article. If you disagree that's fine, i won't intervene any since I feel that you are doing quite a good job of improving the article. Happy editing you too.*Treker (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@*Treker: Thank you very much, that's very gracious. Let me do the roadtest impartially and see what the feedback is like. I look forward to next time, whether here or on some other article. Very best to you indeed. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@*Treker: Rather than going with the original approach, I added a new section, "SeaWorld", drawn on sources that explicitly make the consequential connection, thus resolving this issue by an indirect approach. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Article title

Different edits have favored, "Dawn Brancheau" versus "Death of Dawn Brancheau" as the article title. This was touched on at the recent AfD as well. The closer discerned a consensus in favor of the longer title. However, I think it's fair to say that the title issue was in fact not fully addressed at the AfD as an item of proper specific attention, as the prevailing primary momentum of the AfD was in relation to the deletion nomination. Other editors have had polar opinions about article retention / deletion, and now about the article title, but I do not see properly explanatory edit summaries. As to my own opinion, I am somewhat on the fence about the article name, although if pushed I would personally prefer "Dawn Brancheau". There are several aspects. 1) I think that labeling a person like this is unnecessary and undignified, unless other considerations apply, and here they do not, or at least I am not seeing them. 2) There are some very modest pre-mortem claims here within the article, but there are some. 3) The shorter name would I think be generally preferred per WP:CONCISE because we aren't trying to disambiguate 2 or more articles here. This isn't Michael Jackson, Death of Michael Jackson and Michael Jackson memorial service, in which circumstance I do think it obviously makes sense to use the introductory modifier. In these cases, the introductory modifier has no judgmental implication. Here it does - the proponents of the longer name are "evaluating" the subject, with potential aspects of non-neutrality per WP:NDESC, delivering judgmental disambiguation within a title that doesn't disambiguate. 4) The input at AfD argued that WP:ONEEVENT explicitly favors "Death of Dawn Brancheau". I see an allusion to this in that guideline, but nothing solid, since there is just one article here. I propose to change the title to "Dawn Brancheau", subject to further discussion. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC) FeatherPluma (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC) (Edit again FeatherPluma (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC))

At the same time, her notability was derived almost entirely from her death, much like Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, so there is some precedent for article naming that supports the longer name. --McDoobAU93 20:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@McDoobAU93: Thanks for your input. As you say, there is some precedent for the longer title. For Death of Alexis Martínez, an article I initiated, I found it clear enough, and the longer name is how I went, because there I found it to be inarguable. But rereading WP:1E, it's a general suggestion: "...generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage." I agree that the pre-mortem events here are tenuous (but I am sure someone could disagree). But the post-mortem consequences arising from the death, rather than the details of the death itself, are what the article is really about, as reflected in the length of the various article sections. I think that the shorter name more accurately reflects this. I accept that other editors may see this as too fine a distinction, so I am fully open to being reverted on this, but I am making the change for the explained reasons, and drawing attention to why I believe this is permitted by WP:1E. Personally, I am now done with this article, having taken it from 7,996 bytes with 13 references and many uncited sections, to 27,111 bytes with 42 references. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC) (later edit FeatherPluma (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)))

• I would go with what the reliable sources call the incident. As far as I could tell, there was consensus, not by me, but by others, to rename the article "Death of Dawn Brancheau". The closing admin made that determination based on the discussion and I thought that the rename was a stipulation for keeping the article. That said, the article should be named according to WP:COMMONAME. Now if that title turns out to be "Death of Dawn Brancheau" then so-be-it. If it turns out to be something completely different, then so-be-it as well.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jojhutton: In expanding the article, I didn't find that the reliable sources address the issue as such :). It's possible that they might have, for example if the article were only about "an" incident, but I didn't see that in the sources, instead seeing a lot of discussion, coverage and analysis of the consequences over the past 6 years. I conferred with the closer, who stated no particular personal preference, and who did not stipulate to maintaining the name change discussed as a secondary issue at AfD (see talk). It sounds as if you don't have a strong opinion, or maybe even agree with the present name, and I'm fairly flexible too, based on WP:COMMONAME, and I have explained why I favor the present title. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Current name is unacceptable because she is not inherently notable by herself. The event is clearly notable and if the article is kept, which it looks highly likely it will be, then it should be renamed. But I still feel that anything in this article can easily be said in the Tilikum article. JOJ ^Hutton 02:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: That's very interesting and piques my curiosity. The Death of Alexis Martínez has nothing directly to do with Tilikum but it did feature in OHSCR's findings in the case that was prompted by Brancheau's death, which is why it's here in this article. The long section on OHSCR's findings is about trainer safety while engaged in orca husbandry practices in general, not about Tilikum specifically. The section about statutory confidentiality has nothing whatsoever to do with Tilikum. Dawn Brancheau, not Tilikum, is mentioned by source after source as having led to the recalibration for SeaWorld and their new CEO's acknowledging a "need to respond to the attitudinal change". Nor is, "To be fearless, courageous, tough – to perform a sport or activity at the highest levels of human capacity, even in the face of known physical risk – is among the greatest forms of personal achievement for many who take part in these activities" anything to do with Tilikum exactly. Merging all that to Tilikum seems like a mistake to me. That, I thought, had been resolved at AfD as the primary discussion. The AfD nomination read, "Biography of person notable for single event. No sourcing except for a single quote made after the person's demise. Additional sources needed to prove notability outside of the single incident." The article is now 3 and a half times its size when it was nominated at AfD and there are now 49 references; there is substantial content "outside of the single incident." The version I began with used language and phraseology that implied that her death was a "once-off surprise", "just something that happened". The sources said that's not correct, and the article has been aligned with the sources. I am very sorry but I am a bit lost as to why you are resurrecting the Tilikum merger issue at this time, when we are discussing the article's title, and I thought you were making reference WP:COMMONAME's WP:CONCISE and WP:NDESC subsections, in follow up of my having cited them in favor of the shorter name at the top of this section. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: P.S. In regards to "I would go with what the reliable sources call the incident", a google search of "Dawn Brancheau" pulls up 4,840 results, while "Death of Dawn Brancheau" pulls up 217 results. Obviously I didn't check these in depth, so I can't parse out reliable versus not, but given this significant disparity I am going to add WP:RECOGNIZABLE to the line of reasoning for the shorter name. I also think this search number further solidifies the idea that a merger to Tilikum does not make any sense. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by a page mover)  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  16:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Dawn Brancheau → Death of Dawn Brancheau – Article is mostly about the incident. WP:Notability states that if "there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event, such as Steve Bartman incident." WP:BLP1E also supports this move/rename. Life section should be turned into background, death section should be turned into incident, & consequences section should be aftermath. Elisfkc (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Was a face/spokesperson for SeaWorld prior to her death. We've been around this before. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with the move, the articles title is relevant. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Going through the archive, it seems that there was never a formal discussion about this. In fact, it seems like the consensus on the informal discussions were that this should be moved. As for the face/spokesperson argument, there is no proof or statement saying she was the spokesperson. She appeared on an Orlando news station in 2000 to talk about her job and after her death one person stated that she was the poster girl. The fact is that she was not notable beforehand, which is proven even more so because the article created on the day of the incident. If she had been notable beforehand, the article likely would have existed. Elisfkc (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Careful with that logic; Liviu Librescu was created only after his death, but it's an article that could entirely have existed on its own merits before his death.

• Weak oppose. I don't think Brancheau was notable enough for her own article before her death, but that isn't the only standard at play here. Brancheau is notable, but for reasons that mostly extend to after her death. Her actual death possibly isn't that notable either, although it was horrible! THere's like 4 topics at play here: a brief bio of Brancheau, her death, SeaWorld safety reforms after her death, and her death as a locus for anti-SeaWorld advocacy & laws. The circumstances of her death is only one of these 4. I'd say these topics are best tied together by simply "Dawn Brancheau". SnowFire (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@SnowFire: The 4 topics are all tied together by her death. In actuality, there are three topics: the background (her life), the incident, and the reaction to the incident (by both SeaWorld and others). Over two-thirds of this article are about the incident & the reaction. It's mainly about the incident and the reaction, not about her life. Elisfkc (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Intermediate-strength oppose: Snowfire is correct - there are 4 themes here, so WP:BLP1E doesn't strictly apply. The flow of thought in the archived discussions did not, as is being implied, arrive at a consensus to rename this article. In fact, the chain of logic was an initial effort to remove the article altogether by merging it to Tilikum (orca), followed by some discussion of this article's name where the most avid proponent of such a change pushed the "prevailingly most common usage in sources" argument, with the possibly unexpected boomerang that the prevailing usage isn't her death, but the 4 themes collectively. As a lesser aside, the claim she was a poster girl was hardly "one person". She was on billboards all over Orlando (sourced contention). FeatherPluma (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@FeatherPluma: First off, do you have a citation of the fact that she was on billboards? Even still, the fact that someone is on billboards and/or is the spokesperson for a company does not make them notable. Otherwise, there would be articles about every single Walt Disney World ambassador, as they are the spokesperson/poster person for the company. Also, while not equating a human's death to an animal's death, Cecil the Lion seems to have been almost as notable in life as Dawn, yet that article was moved. This article is mainly about the incident and the response to it, not about her life. Elisfkc (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: Thanks for the question.

IN BRIEF:

The first succinct issue is that we have multiple reasonably distinct themes within the article. The other succinct issue is that even if WP:BLP1E applied (hypothetically) that guideline's relevant text states, In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." (Italics added for clarity. I explain below in detail why this is the relevant part of the language in the guideline, quoting the full paragraph rather than an out-of-context excerpt. The full language of the guideline does not require the renaming as you suggest; on the contrary, in some circumstances such as this it expressly discourages the disambiguating moniker.)

IN DETAIL:

I take your point, and follow its logic, but I politely disagree. To your question, yes, the article does have a citation and footnote for that. You will find that the article's Outside (original publisher) / Best American (republisher) / Zimmerman (it's ref 2; the article has the quote in ref footnote) contains that exact language. (As a side issue, I would acknowledge that the citation in question has been repeatedly claimed by some editors to be unreliable but they have never been able to explain why they have that opinion. This is now a very heavily researched article, with fairly accurate sourcing, in distinction to the status at initial AfD where the nominator commented that there was "a single quote made after the person's demise".)

The incident itself takes up 244 words of the 2197 word article, depending on how you count sections etc. This count is a quick estimate that omits references etc. But you're right, the sections could be shoehorned as you suggest; accordingly, I agree that these percentages are not immutable.

I understand where your suggestion arises. I myself had previously changed the article title as you suggest. However, when I weighed all the factors more carefully it seemed fairly convincing that the guideline would favor this approach, and I changed it back. I am not philosophically opposed to disambiguating moniker titles: for example, the article I initiated (and titled), Death of Alexis Martínez. However, there are valid reasons in this article for not following that option. The paragraph in the guideline, which refers only to "People notable for only one event" (which has not been established by consensus here) reads (in full), "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. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." (Italics added for clarity.) The point is that even with WP:BLP1E (and the language in question comes ONLY from that section and NOT from the general notability criteria - sorry to be so precise) it only supports the disambiguating moniker as a safe harbor in general circumstances, not as an inflexible mandate. Further, it goes on to expressly discourage the disambiguating moniker in certain circumstances: "In such cases", which refers to "a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself", which seems to apply here as the other editors have commented.

You suggest similarity to Killing of Cecil the lion. However, the result of these proposals is not uniform: Marius (giraffe). We are left with the specifics at hand, rather than a blanket policy.

Although slightly beyond the scope perhaps, (perhaps not), there was an interesting aspect to SeaWorld's (unsuccessful) appeal of the adverse safety rulings. Antonin Scalia's son, Eugene Scalia, led the legal team. The main argument, which found favor with the dissenting judge (court document available on the web at [1] see page 24 of 35) was that (in the words of the dissenting judge) "To be fearless, courageous, tough – to perform a sport or activity at the highest levels of human capacity, even in the face of known physical risk – is among the greatest forms of personal achievement for many who take part in these activities." While this isn't explicitly about the senior animal trainer in question, it's not WP:OR to know who (from context, given the case details) is being referred to by Scalia and the judge. It's slightly bizarre that we have a person who was interviewed by TV, who was on billboards, who is well-known for AND BEYOND her death, who we (self-righteously?) wonder is possibly non-notable. KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, dissenting, saw her in the context of "Many sports events and entertainment shows can be extremely dangerous for the participants. Football. Ice hockey. Downhill skiing. Air shows. The circus. Horse racing. Tiger taming. Standing in the batter’s box against a 95 mile per hour fastball. Bull riding at the rodeo. Skydiving into the stadium before a football game. Daredevil motorcycle jumps. Stock car racing. Cheerleading vaults. Boxing. The balance beam. The ironman triathlon. Animal trainer shows. Movie stunts. The list goes on." The list of sports people we have encyclopedic articles about. (amended from original reply to improve clarity and format / time stamped with newer time) FeatherPluma (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Unless there is something remarkably notable about her life outside of the One Event she is notable for, the article should be moved to the "Death of Dawn Branchaeu". This would be consistent with similar one event articles of this nature.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This is inconsistent with Wikipedia's article title policy. The following elements are carefully and neutrally sourced within the article, and all pertain to her life, not her death. Her name is "Dawn Brancheau", not "Branchaeu". In 2000, her work was notable enough to have a brief appearance on CNN affiliate WESH. In 2006, her decade of work with orcas was profiled. The profile gave particular mention to her leadership role in a two to three year revamp of the Shamu show, which was then regarded as SeaWorld's star attraction. The danger of her chosen career was acknowledged in 2006. The level of expertise, energy and public performance of the Shamu performers, recalling that Brancheau received the nod in 2006 for her leadership role, was the basis for the 2014 appeal, where SeaWorld contended that water work by orca trainers was fundamental to its business. She was literally SeaWorld's poster girl on billboards throughout Orlando. It is quite easy to retrieve dozens of photographs where she is explicitly named, showing her interaction with orcas. Many of these captioned photos are professional works, not those of Shamu show visitors. It may be possible to contend against one or another of these elements, but in aggregate the sourced article collectively affirms her notability in life. There is no objective basis whatsoever where it would be even close to reasonable to contend that she was an otherwise unknown person who was merely caught up passively in "One Event". Furthermore, the death incident itself is not the major element of the subsequent developments: the protean postmortem ramifications go well beyond articles labeled with the "Death of" moniker, which have a single main theme and generally a similarly monothemed aftermath, as has already been explained. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@FeatherPluma: While I see the point you made earlier about it being similar to the Tank Man, where the name is the most common way to refer to the incident, I still take a large issue with the rest of your notability argument. By your standards of notability, every newscaster should have their own article, since they appear on TV, act as the channel's spokesperson, and appear on billboards. I mean, I think Gary Lezak of KSHB-TV is great and is extremely well known in Kansas City, but I don't think he is notable enough for his own article even though he is on TV and many billboards (the Kansas City Star even wrote an article when his dog died, which makes him seem much more notable than pre-death Branchaeu). There are hundreds of photos, professional even, that are of him and mention him by name, but Gary isn't notable enough for an article in my mind. And while Jojhutton did accidentally misspell her name, that doesn't mean that Jojhutton's support of the move is worth any less. Elisfkc (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: I follow your analogy and I fully acknowledge it. I think everyone would be very comfortable respecting where you are coming from, even though I have my own viewpoint too. Some other people on other issues have not been as detailed or evenhanded as you clearly are, so it has been very nice to interact collaboratively on this with you. It will be a pleasure to change the article title if this is the proper careful consensus but it doesn't look as if consensus is in that direction presently. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:BLP1E applies to only living persons. People would have meant WP:BIO1E, which applies to any person, living or dead. --George Ho (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, BIO1E rather than BLP1E is the standard being discussed, that's completely fair and correct. But it does not modify the essence between the viewpoints. I will be presumptuous and speak for both sides of the discussion, which appreciate the correction, thanks. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.