Talk:Philip Gale

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Death of Philip Gale → Philip Gale — While the subject is indeed largely notable for his suicide, this article is structured as a normal biography and not an article about a single event, as the current title would suggest. Since the subject is dead, WP:BLP1E is inapplicable; I also don't see a particularly obvious choice for a more widely scoped article to upmerge this one into. IMO, this seems a perfectly fine standalone article anyway. I see no need to accentuate the death (which should be "suicide" anyway if we're to be accurate & frank) so very strongly in the title and suggest we treat it like any other biography article. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Object. a) the fact that this is written like a normal biography is irrelevant - if that's an issue re-write it. It isn't hard. b) Philip Gale is not notable. The only thing that is notable is his death (and there's not even a consensus to say that his death is notable). We don't write biographies on non-notable people. c) BLP1E says we write about notable events rather than unnotable people. That's a perfectly valid principle here, and just as valid for the dead. The nominator fails to give any reason why a biography would be appropriate or better. Changing dead to suicide is an issue that could be discussed separately.--Scott Mac 13:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see why his claim to notability can't be his death. Compare Matthew Shepard, Amber Hagerman, etc. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Let's not try to distinguish between individuals notable only for their death and notable individual deaths. Srnec (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The article as it stands is about the individual, not just his death, and appears to be encyclopedic. Andrewa (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The event is notable. The person isn't. Nothing more to say really.Griswaldo (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Again, why can't his death be his source of notability? --Cybercobra (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • In which case, why not write about the notable thing. Why is a biography preferable?--Scott Mac 09:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't care hugely about the content styling (bio vs. event), but the current title is more verbose and unintuitive than necessary. And person vs. death notability seems to be hair-splitting, IMO. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Neither the person nor the suicide are in any way notable outside of the closed environs of hubbardistas vs their critics. If the subject didn't have a tenuous link to the Hubbardistas it would almost certainly never have been written, and would never be defended with the vigour that it attracts. That a 19 yo student commits suicide is pretty much a SO WHAT? Stupid article, stupid title, and another stupid discussion around it. John lilburne (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The subject is notable based on our notability criteria. If there was no link to Scientology the subject would not have been written about in enough reliable sources to meet that criteria in the first place, and it certainly would never have been covered in Wikipedia. But that is neither here nor there. Now that someone has created the entry, and it is clear that there is enough sourcing to show notability it is our responsibility to cover it as well as possible. Can we just focus on that please? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    • The subject is notable based on our notability criteria. Well someone needs to work on that. Do you not find it rather odd to define notability based on stuff that was false? Because on that bases one would expect a whole article on this fellow given the amount that was written in RS on false premises too. John lilburne (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I accept that there are some bios of people notable for their deaths that are just titled under their names, but we also have many that do have Death of ... in the name. On balance, the latter seems more appropriate. --JN466 14:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support based on finding "Death of [person's name]" to be a gruesome title, which I suppose is an IDONTLIKEIT rationale. That there are other "Death of" articles is OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I mostly concur that Gale didn't meet GNG during his lifetime. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Added: What I'm saying is I don't think naming an article after a person requires the article to be a biography, e.g. Matthew Shepard as Cybercobra mentioned. Gale's death got considerable media coverage and I the article contents as they stand (they are mostly non-biographical) either have or don't have sufficient sourcing to meet relevant requirements, independently of the title. The title is just to have something to call the article and isn't of overwhelming significance to the article classification. Classification is mostly a matter of interpretation and is part of what categories are for. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I am little conflicted here as if we moved it into biography territory We could delete it as non-notable person. People look at the history this page it was originally Called Philip Gale. An AFD put it under threat of deletion as WP:BIO1E but was moved to "death of" in the middle of it as it has better chance of surviving under WP:EVENT. I dont think We should have it at all and should be deleted as Coatrack but lacking another AFD discussion thats not a call I can make on the talk. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 19:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only became notable for the death and the article is not structured like a biography. It is heavily weighted to the suicide (which is as it should be, it was the only notable part of his life) and the earlier biographical information is merely the preamble and (for lack of a better word) introduction to the notable event. Although WP:BLP1E does not apply, WP:BIO1E clearly does. This person's life is non-notable and would not survive an AfD, only the event is notable and hence the article should be named for the event. Jenks24 (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:BIO1E/WP:VICTIM. The article is still predominantly about the death of Gale and the bio sections are suspect (see WP:VICTIM: "Be cognizant of issues of weight [i.e., avoid creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies...]"). —  AjaxSmack  17:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment At the time of initial request, the article was more biographical in form; it has since been edited by some who are in favor of the "event" treatment. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Someone should close this request which has clearly failed to gain any consensus. It has been open for more than a month now.Griswaldo (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree it needs to be closed (requested moves are only meant to go for a week), but the problem is that WP:RM is heavily backlogged. Leaving neutrally-worded requested at the administrator's noticeboard would probably be your best chance to get this closed sometime in the near future. Jenks24 (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks for the advice.Griswaldo (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reorganization attempt

I saw someone complaining at ArbCom that the article was a "coatrack", and indeed the Scientology references seemed to pop up at random places. I don't think this is because the information is irrelevant - probably the main reason we're hearing about this person is probably because of the Scientology issue - but it does need to be concentrated into one section, introduced in a way that makes clear how this became an issue, and given an appropriate amount of skeptical distance as befits something which is more or less speculation. I've tried to do this [1] but I don't know this story well or what's been taken out in the past. I hope this can be a step in the right direction. Wnt (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Rearranging the deckchairs doesn't make it less of a coatrack. If there wasn't a Scientology hook the article would be "Bright student kills himself" and there isn't anything notable about that. Adding Scientology what we have is "Bright student kills himself. He was brought up as a Scientologist." and that hasn't added anything extra to the story, other than to add the Hubbardista peg. John lilburne (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted and removed irrelevant information. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the March 13 bit is important to mention (certainly more important than the Subgenius stuff). I'm not saying that I see proof (from what I've read here, at least...) of any sinister Scientology conspiracy, but it might be the equivalent of so many Christians who suicide on Christmas. Wnt (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

give a second to review and i'll get back to ya. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading through the source the speculative stuff about "the holiday" I actually found that his father had died and he was "coming to terms with it." Thats more concrete problem rather then the tenuous Scientology Holiday stuff. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"No original research" should apply to those who delete information just as much as those who add it. Taking this out leaves an article that says that news media were speculating about the role of Scientology without saying why - I think it should be clear that the date had something to do with it. Wnt (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not clear at all that the date had anything to do with it. Removing text does not create original research -- it can mean that some remains that was already OR before conjoining text was removed.Griswaldo (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If a source says that a jug is full of red and green balls, and you remove mention of the green balls because you don't think there are any in the jug, that's original research. Wnt (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Background

The bits in the background section that mention Scientology (in relation to his parents, his high school and earthlink) should be moved to the media coverage section or whatever section the Scientology connection is being discussed in. As it is it simply biases the reader in a very narrow direction by continued to qualify everything related to Scientology as such.Griswaldo (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not possible to remove all the Scientology because it's normal to state the parent's professions in that section, and if it's correct the mother was a "Scientology official" (though that could use explanation). The role of Scientology in the Delphian School and Earthlink seems notable in explaining how he came to be in either of them - but it would be nice to get an explicit mention that went their because of that fact (was it the parents' choice? His own desire to stick with his religion? etc) Wnt (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Philip Gale.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Philip Gale.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Philip Gale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bostonherald.com/scientology/sci3298.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bostonherald.com/scientology/sci3198.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bostonherald.com/scientology/sci3398.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bostonherald.com/scientology/sci3498.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bostonherald.com/scientology/sci3598.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://chaotique.mit.edu/pgale/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://chaotique.mit.edu/pgale/scientology/old-text.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)