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 redirect to Prince (musician)#Illness and death. Clear consensus to delete or redirect, but some editors voted delete per WP:TOOSOON, and expressed the opinion that the topic may gain notability in the future. This article is reasonably well-developed, so closing this as redirect would allow its page history to be accessible by everyone. "Death of Prince" is a plausible search term for this topic, so keeping this as a redirect is appropriate. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 12:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Death of Prince

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Death of Prince (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reactions to the death of Prince (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

There's nothing even remotely notable about his death to warrant a separate article. He died, end of story. The Prince article is sufficient. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a news site, and currently it seems that there is nothing non-newsy to write about. Try Wikinews for this type of content. — Kusma ( t· c) 18:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete The death of this notable person does not need it's own article, at this point the person's main article is all that is needed; when the results of what killed him come out and it's significant enough then maybe an article like this would be appropriate, but until then this article is not needed. Also I don't know of any other death of person page on Wikipedia, it's all in their main articles. KDTW Flyer ( talk) 00:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • inre "I don't know ..." Er.... Search "Death of..." I'd dare say there are close to a hundred over of such articles. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 08:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Some articles about the deaths of entertainers include Death of John Lennon, Death of Jimi Hendrix, Death of James Dean, Death of Hank Williams, Death of Marvin Gaye, and Death of Michael Jackson. The Transhumanist 10:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Prince (musician) for now. Unless something significant comes out of the autopsy like foul play or something. Right now this article is premature and can't really be expanded upon until more details are released. Jay Jay ^{What did I do?} 19:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep The quality of the writing of this article is crap but only because 1 or 2 editors have worked on it for about 15 minutes. The amount of material is staggering and the outline suggests much more can be written. When we look at other famous contemporaries to Prince, like Michael Jackson and Jimi Hendricks, both have "Death of __-" articles. Add to that there are public relations lies, such as the flu, and the vast outpouring of grief, there is much to write. If we look at the reliable sources, there are many about the death of Prince, not just about Prince. BIG NOTE: Death of Jimi Hendricks is a Featured Article, showing that certain big deaths are really Wikipedia materials. ( Personal attack removed) Nomination of this as an AFD and the nominator making the budding article worse by removing stuff is [wrong].^{( Personal attack removed)} No one in their right mind is going to help improve the article if there is an AFD cloud over its head so we should close this as a keep and revisit it in about 1 month....that is the fair way, ( Personal attack removed). Purple Showers ( talk) 20:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note. The above editor was blocked indefinitely by a checkuser. Note also that the comment has been refactored to avoid comments that enter the realm of personal attacks. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Struck !vote of block-evading sockpuppet. Softlavender ( talk) 03:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete The death of this notable person does not need it's own article, a this point the person's main article is all that is needed; when the results of what killed him come out and it's significant enough then maybe but until then this article is not needed. KDTW Flyer ( talk) 00:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

1) It's "its" not "it's". 2) Duplicate !vote Kingoflettuce ( talk) 08:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete the article. His death can be expanded on, if necessary on the Prince Wikipedia page. 2601:483:101:9BDD:6882:19B3:F900:F6D8 ( talk) 22:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply

The Prince Wikipedia article is already over 125KB, per WP:SIZE this is a valid content fork. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

All this IP has ever done is to comment on this. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 08:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. If anyone feels strongly that this article has potential, that user should work on it in their sandbox for now. Her Pegship ( talk) 22:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Such suggestion violates Wikipedia rules. If this suggestion is followed for all articles, Wikipedia could not exist because it takes several editors to collaborate. We have to evaluate if the Death of Prince is a big thing (which it is) compared to the Death of Patty Duke, a famous actress. There are lots of coverage on the Death of Prince, but not much on the Death of Patty Duke. Therefore KEEP. Purple Showers ( talk) 23:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
As noted above, this user has been indefinitely blocked. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Please link to the relevant Wikipedia rules, and note that no one suggested that all articles be created in this way. No one is contesting that the death of Prince is an important milestone, only that a separate article on the event may not be necessary in this venue. Her Pegship ( talk) 23:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete and I would've suggested exploring to Prince but that may still be vague as the name "Death of Prince" could be to anyone else. Delete at this is unlikely better for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Everything I've read so far says that there's nothing particularly out of the ordinary about his death. It wasn't a homicide, suicide, no foul play suspected etc. Once the autopsy is out, his death will probably just be summed up in a sentence or two. It's better to be presented as a subsection in the main Prince article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete People die all the time. Notable people don't need an article documenting how they died. Especially since we don't know how Prince died! This cruft is almost as bad as the "reactions to the death of Prince" article. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep I am seeing notable tributes in the form of cover songs dedicated to Prince by Chris Cornell [1], to having his music goto #1 on the Billboard top #200. [2]. There are also questions on who will inherit his fortune. [3] per WP:LASTING this should be kept, and improved upon. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

His Ex-wife is also building a school in his honor. [4] - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

A death article may be warranted, but right now it's too soon. We don't even know the cause of death yet. Notable content, such as his music going to #1, can go in his regular article. Content solely about Cornell covering him is not notable at all, but if there are a substantial number of prominent artists covering him, then that can also be added. Dirroli ( talk) 03:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete. This was already discussed on the talk page of the main article. There's absolutely no reason to have a trumped-up hour-by-hour NEWS reporting of Prince's death. A well-known entertainer died. Happens all the time. Softlavender ( talk) 00:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Softlavender: Really, how many do you know of that have other famous people do cover songs about them, or have buildings built in their honor? These are notable lasting reactions. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

To repeat, a famous entertainer died. Happens all the time. We have a newbie editor with less than 160 edits to his name creating an ill-advised completely non-notable article. It needs to go before anyone wastes any more time on it. Softlavender ( talk) 01:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

You aren't thinking outside the box though, and looking at the current state of the article. I have provided some sources to expand upon. We don't know the cause of his death yet no, but there have been as I said lasting reactions. Keep in mind that per WP:SIZE the main article is over 125KB as it is. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Softlavender: Which speedy delete criteria do you think this meets?  Rebb ing  01:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

A10. Softlavender ( talk) 01:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note the bolded text in the policy: A10 is for articles that duplicate existing topics without "expand[ing] upon, detail[ing] or improv[ing] information." This clearly adds material that isn't already in the primary article; this is not A10 territory. Note that I'm not saying this shouldn't be deleted early as a snowball close; I'm just saying it's not a candidate for speedy deletion.  Rebb ing  02:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I never said it was "a candidate for speedy deletion"; I merely !voted that it should be speedily deleted. This is AfD, not CSD. Softlavender ( talk) 03:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per Knowledgekid87.— SixtLeft ( talk) 01:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• By the way the following people, who have !voted (pro and con) on the AfD for Reactions to the death of Prince need to be notified of the existence of this article and AfD, as it's clearly yet another content fork: Muboshgu, Sunshineisles2, SwisterTwister, Sander.v.Ginkel, The Almightey Drill, Kencf0618, Adog104, Camilo Sanchez, NinjaRobotPirate, Rebbing, Zerbey, Mlpearc, Mtaylor848, SNUGGUMS, InedibleHulk. -- Softlavender ( talk) 01:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC) By the way I forgot EvergreenFir, who was the nominator of that article. Softlavender ( talk) 07:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I am the creator of the reactions article and recommend merge. That AFD is mostly delete. Therefore, the above post is canvasssing and illegal. Therefore, the deciding administrator should be aware of voter misconduct and decide on a keep. Whiskeymouth ( talk) 03:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Whiskeymouth: Softlavender's notification was appropriate. Did you even read WP:CANVASS before making this accusation? There's nothing "illegal" per se about notifying editors of ongoing discussions; Softlavender pinged a limited group of editors—everyone who participated in a particular AfD—without bias. That's clearly permissible under the policy. Add to that the fact that someone copied without attribution ( diff) pretty much all of Reactions to the death of Prince into this article after that article had been nominated for deletion, which was both a violation of our copyright, see WP:ATTREQ, and a blatant circumvention of the deletion discussion, cf. WP:EDITATAFD (essay) ("Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally before the debate closes.").  Rebb ing  04:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete far too soon when we don't even know how he died yet, and all meaningful content can easily be covered in main article. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 01:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No need for this as of now. It can always be recreated if more information is discovered later. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao ^{Che dicono a Signa?} _{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete It's WP:Coatrack, and vis-à-vis Death of David Bowie there simply isn't an array of homages from notables outside of pop culture, President Obama's statement aside. kencf0618 ( talk) 02:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Prince#Illness and death per section below Delete Not independently notable of Prince. Unlikely to be independently notable given the nature of his death (per sergecross73). A lot of news coverage at the time of his death ≠ notability. Even if it may be independently notable in the future (which I find unlikely), Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we should wait until it is independently notable which is not now. Wugapodes ( talk) 02:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep This is certainly a big subject. The national news on TV have had lengthy segments for 2 nights in a row, which is much different from the usual short mention one evening or even one medium length story for one evening. There is another article on reactions, which I am a major editor, but now think should be merged into this one. This article on the Death of Prince meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Therefore, it should be kept. Also note that the quality of the article is far better than when many of the above delete votes were casts. At that time, the article was pure crap. Whiskeymouth ( talk) 02:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Calm down and be patient. We don't even know the cause of death yet. There's nothing notable at this point to justify the article. If that changes, it can easily be recreated. Dirroli ( talk) 03:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

not true, once destroyed and deleted, nobody will create it for fear of being banned using the excuse "disruption" or "vandalism". Whiskeymouth ( talk) 03:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Respectfully, that's nonsense. Or comedy. Dirroli ( talk) 03:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment This article will no doubt come back to the mainspace once more information comes out. I am unsure of having the article at the moment, though I do see it coming back very soon. -- TheDomain ( talk) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• delete per nom. No way a separate article is needed.-- JohnBlackburne ^words _deeds 03:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

additional comment "Needed" is not a Wikipedia criteria. WP:GNG is a criteria for AFD. It passes. Specifically,

• "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
  
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
  
• "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
  
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]

Viola! You can dislike the article, you can not like the Wikipedia criteria, but Death of Prince easily meets the criteria. Since Wikipedia is not a vote, it is a strong keep as it meets the requirements for an article Likewise, the Death of Roger Bradshaw is NOT notable as it only has this minor mention http://wcfcourier.com/lifestyles/announcements/obituaries/death-notices-for-thursday-april/article_a5cea86e-7d3f-5bcd-92c7-11aa8b957b78.html Whiskeymouth ( talk) 03:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Whiskeymouth, with respect, you are confusing temporary newsworthiness with significant longterm notability. The same sort of uptick in news happened recently the same way when David Bowie, Alan Rickman, Robin Williams, and Phillip Seymour Hoffmann died in recent memory. But that doesn't confer encyclopedic notewrthiness -- it just creates a large temporary media swell dwelling on the person and their career and significance. There was absolutely nothing unusual about Prince's death (except possibly that he was somewhat young, and he had also been out of the general public awareness for quite a long time). Both of those factors create a surpise when the person dies -- but it doesn't last. Softlavender ( talk) 04:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

You forgot the last part of the WP:GNG: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not"(emphasis mine) Commenters here have argued that this article does not merit a stand alone article and many (including myself) have pointed to WP:What Wikipedia is not. Wugapodes ( talk) 04:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Yup. VQuakr ( talk) 04:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

You haven't countered the WP:LASTING argument I provided above, these discussions are measured on weights of comments not by WP:VOTEs. I do not see any difference between this article and Death of David Bowie. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Death of David Bowie wasn't created until 4.5 weeks after he died, when it was evident there was some actual significant content for it beyond merely rehashing and unnecessarily expanding the information in the main article and citing Twitter and Facebook. Softlavender ( talk) 04:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Did you take a look at the sources I provided above? Yeah there are rehashes of generic quotes but there are things that are sticking out, please at least address it. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

No no no no, this is ridiculous and needs to stop. Death of David Bowie should be deleted too. There needs to be solid ground rules on musicians. They are specifically unimportant, I don't care how special or artistic or 'deep' you think music is. Musicians certainly don't need a separate article describing their death, unless and ONLY IF their death was so elaborate and complicated, that it actually does warrant a separate article. Crystal.seed ( talk) 05:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I have to personally agree that Death of David Bowie is largely trivial, NEWS-type, dog-bites-man, extremely redundant stuff and should be deleted. There was nothing significant about his death; he died quietly of cancer. Softlavender ( talk) 05:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Reactions & things like dedications count towards the death of someone important. The article passes WP:LASTING in what has been done, and what is going to be done. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect until such time that there is consensus at Talk:Prince (musician) that a spinoff is warranted. VQuakr ( talk) 03:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note to Administrator: This cannot be done. I merge it and there was a fight at the main Prince article and it was removed. On the other hand, this sub-article is stable and not subject to edit wars. Therefore, suggesting merging is just drama and will lead to the destruction of information (like book burning). Sorry, this article meets WP:GNG and is stable but will result in contentious debates and edit warring if forced to merge with the main article. Whiskeymouth ( talk) 04:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Whiskeymouth, you don't know what you are talking about. A WP:REDIRECT is not a WP:MERGE -- it's just a blanking and redirecting. The article's history is kept, but none of its contents are used unless the article merits recreating at some distant time in the future. Softlavender ( talk) 05:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Whiskeymouth: content inclusion is subject to editorial discretion; get consensus at the main article talk page. Article creation shouldn't be used as an end-run around consensus. VQuakr ( talk) 06:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete I think everything this article says or might say can fit inside the article on Prince in a sub-section named appropriately. Ralphw ( talk) 03:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Abstain Carry on deleting. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete This article is an overreaction. I've been listening to his music over the past few days in mourning, just like many people. Regardless, a separate article is not warranted. KyuuA4 ( Talk:キュウ) 06:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep I am opposed to deleting this article. It does indeed contain substantial additional information. I believe they tried to merge it already which resulted in an deleat of the merged material with-out proper process. Now I remember when Wikipedia first came out, it was suppose to be the place where everyone could come up with any article they wanted. Now, it appears only a small elite can create articles, even editing by the public at large is discouraged unofficially, IMHO. Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 06:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

It's never been the case that anyone could create any article they wanted. WP:N has always applied, to every editor and every article. — BillC  ^talk 10:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not enough to have its own article. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{( Talk)} 08:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non-encylopaedic POVFORK. Delete per wikipedia is not news, obituary, memorial etc., etc...One of the main arguments for keep has been wp:otherstuffexists, however, as others have pointed out these are of markedly different situations. Thus far it does not meet GNG and is a prime example of wp:recentism. It may in the future meet GNG, but at this point in time it does not. The existence of coverage is not a sufficient reason for inclusion. Hollth ( talk) 08:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete and write something similar within the Prince article. We have a section on his death there, no need for a sub-article. -- Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There is nothing of singular notoriety about the death or its circumstances. Moreover, the rapid flurry to edit around this is substantially recentist, and it will be many weeks before we have the information and answers required to present an encyclopedic account of his passing. Finally, allowing the precedent that celebrities demand additional articles at their passing is an unhelpful one, given the longterm challenge of maintaining at high quality even one article per subject. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 09:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect for time being, the content might get large enough to be spun out into this article but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Lasting effects have been mentioned but until such time those effects are known then we keep it as part of the main article until they are known (and there's enough notable events to justify such a spinout). tutterMouse ( talk) 10:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete/redirect. There is nothing that makes his death, while sad, in any way different and more notable to any other famous person's. — BillC  ^talk 10:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Thanks SoftLavender for the heads up. Article is sort of a mirror to Reactions to the death of Prince. This article in particular reads off like a Newspaper - WP:NOTNEWS and a death about a famous person doesn't need its own article unless it has some significance. For example Robin Williams has a whole section for his death on his article and reaction, but Michael Jackson has another article for his death because it was part of a drug overdose which resulted in a trail for manslaughter. Unless Prince was killed by another person, which most likely he wasn't because of falling health being reported, he doesn't need two separate articles about death. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 13:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete While it is incredibly sad that he has passed away there isn't anything specifically notable about it. This isn't like with Michael Jackson where there was so much controversy surrounding it and him. *Treker ( talk) 14:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The article for Prince Nelson is over 130 kB, so splitting articles from it will reduce its size. Merge Reactions to the death of Prince into Death of Prince per WP:CHEAP, as the former is too small for its own article, so long as Death of Prince exists. There is no reason to delete the information in Death of Prince without retaining its history. Additionally, assuming that title " Death of Prince" is ambiguous, we can change the title to something like " Death of Prince Rogers Nelson". If this article cannot be kept, its history should be kept via a merge into Prince Nelson. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Two editor support keeping the article for WP:SIZE reasons, saying " Prince (musician) is already over 125KB, per WP:SIZE this is a valid content fork". Prince (musician) is however only 53 kB (9116 words) "readable prose size" in its current revision. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Unnecessary CFORK with an unreasonable amount of POV. Cut away the trivial details and there's nothing there currently that can't be covered in subject's main article. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Satisfies Wikipedia criteria for notability. Enough information to support an article and too much information for the large Prince (biography article) to accommodate. TeacherA ( talk) 18:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Check Michael Jackson's, John F. Kennedy's, Paul Walker's pages, any category can never be too long, but it has to be WP:GNG if it warrants itself an article. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
    • The events of his death have already been proven as notable through multiple WP:RS, what are you talking about? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to relevant section in Prince (musician) — JFG ^talk 21:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect: User:JayJay summed it nicely. -- 2ReinreB2 ( talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect: Seems like the best option to me for now. – Qpalzmmzlapq T C 02:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete and merge with main Prince article, similar to how there's no separate "Death of Elvis Presley" article, both being significant musical icons. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 03:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • There is, however, an article on the death of SRV, though I tried hard to stop that. Maybe y'all can look at that next, haha. Drmies ( talk) 03:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Post-haste Deletion Torch building on fire. Celebrity worship is pretentious, it's definitely not encyclopedic. Crystal.seed ( talk) 04:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • "Not encyclopedic" is an empty argument. It means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because it should be deleted". This is just repeating yourself. What we want to know are your reasons why the article shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Simply answer the question, What guidelines does it violate, and how? The Transhumanist 08:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

And you seem to be arguing just for the sake of argument. It is of my personal opinion that you have nothing better to do. I am having trouble believing that you are genuine, that you honestly believe anyone, no matter how popular they are, deserves a separate article related to their death. I ever so personally believe you are being disruptive, and are purposely avoiding the use of common sense. The only valid exception in creating a separate article related to anyones death would be if the situation was so elaborate, that it would actually require a separate article to reduce a significant amount of clutter. Crystal.seed ( talk) 17:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

See WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. They should answer your questions. -- Softlavender ( talk) 08:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I think if you look in most encyclopedias you won't find "Death of" articles, the death will be documented in the article on the person who died. In that way it is not encyclopedic. HighInBC 08:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

No other encyclopedia has all these articles about high schools, porn stars, and even TV episodes. This AFD should be a keep because it exceeds all of those as far as notability and reliable sources. A big problem is that the Wikipedia criteria were not well written but that is not an AFD issue but a Wikipedia wide issue that should be discussed elsewhere and this article kept. Whiskeymouth ( talk) 05:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

HighInBC, The Transhumanist has wholesale pasted this article into Prince (musician) twice just now. I've left him a final warning on his talk page. Can you (or other admins) put Prince (musician) on your watch lists for now to ensure he doesn't repeat that and to block him if he does? Softlavender ( talk) 09:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

It will have to be someone else. I am involved in this content dispute and thus cannot act in an admin in this matter. HighInBC 09:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Illness and death section in Prince (musician). Seems to me the most sensible solution. κ ατάστασ η 04:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note A common theme seems to be displeasure with having these death articles. However, this should not result in attacking this article as an AFD but rather a Wikipedia-wide discussion on how if we want to modify our GNG and N criteria for article inclusion. Wikipedia is not a vote as has been written many, many times in other AFDs. Wikipedia is not an "I don't like it so delete". Already, we have seen that this article is too detailed and big for the main Prince article but sufficiently detailed and appropriate for a Death of Prince article. Whiskeymouth ( talk) 05:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: One of the worst things about having this redundant WP:CONTENTFORK article is that it is accumulating misinformation and is not being corrected the same way Prince (musician) is. Therefore we have two or three articles that contradict each other. Editors shouldn't have to check or fix three different articles when they are making a correction or update re: Prince (musician). That is why I believe it/they should be speedily deleted. Softlavender ( talk) 05:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Facepalm: The article creator has created Category:Notable deaths of musicians. -- Softlavender ( talk) 05:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Every person dies, and nothing about this death is particularly notable other than the fact that the person who died was notable. Well that is why we have an article about them. No objection to leaving a redirect, while someone typing it is unlikely there may already be external links to it. HighInBC 05:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

The continuing coverage about his death and related aspects is very notable. Whiskeymouth ( talk) 05:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

That makes him notable, not the death. The news is because of who died, not because the death itself was notable. The day the music died is a notable event about peoples death, The death of Elvis was a notable event but only because of who died, and that is why we cover it in Elvis. HighInBC 15:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep Prince's death has triggered a significant outpouring of grief. As it stands now, there is plenty of noteworthy coverage with respect to the death. It is notable as an event on its own -- and in this case I would argue that notability is inherited, Prince being a notable figure would mean his death, especially how sudden and shocking it was, has an acceptable degree of notability. Info would get swamped if merger to main were to happen. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 08:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• If years later this is still true then I would agree with you. But there is a significant reaction because it is happening now. We should not edit based on recentism. Even the Elvis does not have a Death of Elvis page, and there was certainly a greater reaction to his death at the time. HighInBC 08:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• That's a separate article; each case merits its own arguments -- but ever consider that the converse could be argued? We could make a case for the Elvis death article? Not existing doesn't mean existence shouldn't be. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 09:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• I am talking about this article. My point is that a lot of important people have died and there was a great amount of fuss about it. I am providing an argument against the idea that a lot of reaction immediately after a death makes the death itself a notable event. It was an eventuality. Right now we don't even know how the death occurred. It is not encyclopedic to have an article on a death unless the death itself had importance beyond the person who died, otherwise it belongs in the article about the person. If it turns out to be an assassination or something unusual I will revisit my opinion. HighInBC 09:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete (at least for now) - this is hero worship in an ugly, ugly way. I know there are articles similar to this, and they are just as ugly, but let's stay with this one for the moment. The cause of death isn't even known yet. People are acting frantic and maudlin and far too fraught with emotion to be done well. WE ARE NOT IN A HURRY. He will still be dead next week and the week after. Let's all cool our jets and wait for the sound to noise ratio of shock, grief, tribute covers, commemorative mugs, etc. to abate so we can approach this with clearer head. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 08:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Such criteria is not a Wikipedia policy or even a guideline. You can wait a week or two before editing the article and adding stuff. Whiskeymouth ( talk) 05:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep His unexpected death and the worldwide response to it are similar to Michael Jackson's, so I don't see why Wikipedia should delete this when we do retain Death of Michael Jackson. MackyBeth ( talk) 10:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- ThurnerRupert ( talk) 11:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Please Keeeep! -- SlimShady1017 People need to know the truth and cold-hard facts regarding his death.Please maintain the article. —Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep This way all the frantic editing due to more news emerging every day stay in one separate article instead of spilling over into the main article. After a while, when things are settled, it can be decided if it should be kept or merged with the main article. - Takeaway ( talk) 13:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete any meaningful content is already in the main article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and do not know all the legal technicalities to argue a Wikipedia case so do not attack me or my comments. I read the Prince article then this Death of Prince article. While I wouldn't expect to see such article in the print version of World Book Encyclopedia or Encyclopedia Brittanica, this Wikipedia article adds a large amount of useful and desired information that would be stylistically inappropriate for the main Prince article. I urge the governing powers at Wikipedia to keep and maintain this article. I do not think it is workable to merge this fine, but new, article to the main article, nor do I think it should be deleted. Thank you. April 24, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thank you very much wiki ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Thank you very much wiki ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• I'm not seeing the volume of content or substance necessary to make this justifiable as a separate topic in its own right from his existing biography. Separate "death of notable person" articles should, in reality, be a lot rarer than they are — they're certainly warranted in extraordinary circumstances on the order of JFK at Dealey Plaza, but every famous person who dies (as all famous people eventually will, by virtue of the fact that famous people are people) does not automatically need one of these just because there was reaction to the death (which all famous people's deaths will always generate, by virtue of the fact that famous people are famous): the justification for an article like this is extended cultural impact, over much longer than the first two or three days. If things get so JFK-fishy that Barack Obama appoints an entire commission to investigate it, or if a Cobain-style conspiracy theory emerges that one of his ex-wives actually had him murdered which lasts for so long that the Minneapolis police are still releasing statements about it twenty years from now, that would be a good basis for a separate article — but "Rihanna and Oprah Winfrey tweeted that they were sad" is not. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a much more lasting significance and impact, going far beyond "thing that happened", can be shown. Bearcat ( talk) 15:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

If it were JFK-fishy, the investigation would be overseen by the guy sucked into the power vacuum. Lady Gaga, perhaps. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to main Prince article. If more information that comes to light warrants a separate article, the content deletion can easily be undone rather than having to request an article restoration. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to the section in Prince (musician), because I suppose it is a legitimate search term, and it's just possible it will become notable at some point in the future (I would argue that Death of Elvis Presley has; it's continued to be discussed). Right now, as others have pointed out, it's notable only in the context of Prince's notability and falls squarely in NOTTHENEWS territory. Somewhere there is or was an essay with a title something like "100 newspapers", which pointed out that events often receive a flurry of news coverage, but that this doesn't make them notable. I'm sorry I failed to find it, because I think that's exactly what's at issue here: there's a lot of coverage but no indication it will be anything but transient. Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep I mentioned on the talk it needs to be cleaned up/and if deleted the more relevant things need to be moved to the main article. His death is still a moving story--there isn't obvious foul play, but more to the story may happen and the additional details so as long as they are correct are better. Just because a person has an article does not mean there cannot be an article about a significant moment in their life. The day the music died is an example of this--the story about how they died is culturally relevant beyond doubt. This story is still unfolding. I'm not sure how relevant stuff like Justin Bieber's comments are on his death but it is relevant technically to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.1.204 ( talk) 16:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC) <— 75.114.1.204 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Delete For Now While not a single one of the references at the bottom of the article mention TMZ.com, if you click on the links many (most?) of the sources are reprinting that single site's claims. Let's wait for actual coroner's report, and go from there. RevelationDirect ( talk) 19:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is not a debate whether the death of Prince is notable, this a discussion whether the death of Prince should be in a separate article. Or in other words, just another meaningless debate on article namespace. The details regarding his death should be in the main article, if later, there is an argument based on WP:SIZE, then a separate article might be appropriate. 3 days after his death is not enough, at least give it 40 days. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 21:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Interesting details, which need not to be mentioned in the Prince main article. Erdenstern ( talk) 21:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Erdenstern ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

This editor also has not edited a bunch of crap just to build up edit counts. Whiskeymouth ( talk) 05:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete: It's way too soon to create one of these articles. We hardly know any details about his death. If there turns out to be reasonable suspicion of foul play or a substantial investigation (like with Michael Jackson or Kurt Cobain), then I think it would make sense to have an article dedicated to his death. Gottagotospace ( talk) 22:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Eh, even if there was foul play, it would probably be something which can be summarized in a few sentences or short paragraph. I understand you're trying to be helpful, but lets also be realistic here. Crystal.seed ( talk) 23:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Realism in a high-profile music industry death? That's preposterous. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Unless the autopsy triggers a criminal investigation there is no reason for this to be on a separate page to the main article. Zerbey ( talk) 13:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Nah, that would only add maybe 4 additional sentences, at most. Crystal.seed ( talk) 16:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete There's nothing in this coverage that calls for a separate article. A biography of a dead person includes information about that person's death. A separate article about their death should be created when there's significant coverage in independent reliable sources of details that are not biographical. There are lots of sources here, but they're all about biography. Maybe, in the future, there'll be sources with which to differentiate this death from the deaths that all of us eventually face, but there's nothing like that yet. Until there is, WP:NOTNEWS applies. It's not even a close call folks. David in DC ( talk) 17:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

There certainly are many news articles about his death that is not biographical. There's even one article about that he did not have a will and that will cause a huge problem. Whiskeymouth ( talk) 05:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Under WP:NOTNEWS it says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." The fact that his songs are making #1 hits (the direct result of his death) stands out, as not everyone has this happen to them. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

If he died a week ago, how can anything attest to the "enduring notability" of his death? David in DC ( talk) 21:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

That logic would disqualify most of Wikipedia, except 9-11 and the President. Whiskeymouth ( talk) 05:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Pteranodon, Daugava and Vameq II Dadiani aren't from last week, either. Might be a few more. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment More sources showing that Price's death had an impact. [5] "Prince Takes Top Two Slots in Billboard 200" [6] "Prince's death sharply impacts sales of his music" There is also his unreleased music. [7] - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

That's a perfectly valid basis for adding two sentences about recharting after his death to his existing biography. It doesn't constitute a reason why a standalone article about his death, as a separate topic from his life, is needed or warranted. Bearcat ( talk) 19:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete The content on this page should be on Prince (musician)#Illness and death. It doesn't need it's own page. —   dain omite   18:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment There seems to be a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which should cause reflection but Wikipedia rules need to be followed, which would be a keep. This is because the article far exceeds the requirements of notability. There are many, many reliable sources about the death of Prince. These sources are not about Prince but about his death. They continue to come out even many days after his death and cover different aspects. Some have said that there was no proven murder or conspiracy, but that is not an article requirement. Some have been accused of not having many edits and at least one delete vote comes from someone who gives thanks for being notified. Some have tried to cross out comments and falsely accuse others. This is besides the point. The point is whether the article, much improved since day 1 (when it was, frankly, a terribly written article) passes the criteria. It does. Peace. Whiskeymouth ( talk) 05:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment: In terms of encyclopedic notability, one needs to ask, "Will this be significant 50 years from now?" The answer for this article and the "Reactions" article, and indeed most any "Death of ..." article, is no. Softlavender ( talk) 10:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep the death is very heavily covered, and while not suspicious, is an early death (during active career) for someone with no reported serious health problems. the media coverage is not completely overplayed. and, i think it fits better in its own article, as its rather lengthy, than in the article on him, as this is not about his career so much. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 17:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I think it's debatable on weather celebrity coverage can still be considered valid news. I certainly believe you are putting too much importance on this subject. Perhaps Wikipedia is not the best place to promote big Hollywood multi billion dollar profit-based industries. These are not totally legitimate subjects with scholarly material and sources. I would definitely classify this as pretentious celebrity worship. Crystal.seed ( talk) 19:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Still more prestigious than celebrity weather coverage. Joking aside, I'll add that there were reported serious health problems. They're in the lead of this article. Second sentence. Rationale like these sugggest the article is prominently lying or ineffective at teaching, or someone voted Keep without reading it. Not a good look, any way. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Bro, the chick on Fox 11 News Los Angeles is smoking hot. I worship her as my local information queen. She is on TV so that obviously makes her important Crystal.seed ( talk) 19:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Smoking and single. Shall we have an article about her dead husband? It's good enough for Fox. Joking aside again, glioblastoma multiforme could use some awareness. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Celebrity news may not be your cup of tea, but that's not what this discussion is about. Like I've said plenty of times before to editors with differing (and closed minded) views, what you deem "important" or "newsworthy" does not reflect the same to the person sitting besides you. We all come from different places with differing taste, so let's tone down some of the comments as some are indirectly attacks to editors here who spend their time on popular culture articles. I agree that this article should be deleted and merge as it's WP:TOOEARLY. – jona ✉ 21:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

This is not about what I perceive to be my cup of tea. Were you not able to comprehend anything else I wrote? Again, to me you seem to be arguing for no apparent reason, just for the sake of argument. Entertainment is a big industry, with literally billions of dollars involved. This generally weighs against the credibility of any body or institution, because, with a little common sense, you can see how easy it would be to manipulate sources of information, release your own false information, or generally be biased for the purpose of profiteering. The mainstream music scene is definitely not exempt from this. Once again I will remind you how these are not scholarly or wholesome matters of subject. This is exactly what I mean by "unencyclopedic" in one of my earlier comments, which either you, or someone similar seems to blindly argue about. Crystal.seed ( talk) 01:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep His death is unusual for someone this young and for his status, it will be too much to summarize in the main article. -- Green C 20:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

It already isn't. When we find out what killed the famous 57-year-old, that'll be another sentence. If there's a notable dispute, that'll be two more. Still fits. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, April 26, 2016 (UTC)

• Delete I do not see why this person's death in and of itself is notable enough for its own article. This wasn't a Lennon assassination or a Skynyrd plane crash, and so far the authorities have stated they do not think it's foul play. If dramatic details come out later, then that's the time for a separate article. TheBlinkster ( talk) 02:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply

You seem to be under the impression that John Lennon was important. Yes, I imagine this was a big deal back in the day, but really, it's just all just a manufactured game. A song and a dance. This importance cannot be proven outside media sources which are proven to be biased. But I still don't see how even his death would deserve its own article. Crystal.seed ( talk) 05:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply

"You seem to be under the impression that John Lennon was important." You're actually trying to argue that the front man, lead singer, and principle songwriter of the single most influential music act of the 20th century - a band which fundamentally altered the trajectory of popular music forever, whose success empowered a whole generation into creating a countercultural movement that still resonates through virtually all aspects of life today - was somehow not important? I could never have imagined someone making such an assertion if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Whether or not Prince was more important than Lennon or vice versa, that is not my point. From a basic common sense standpoint, a psychotic gunman shooting a major celebrity dead on his doorstep in NYC with the ensuing worldwide mass coverage including a US network television football game being interrupted to have Howard Cosell announce it certainly meets Wiki standards for a notable crime. The article would include discussion of the perp and any court procedures, all of which are outside the scope of the article on the celebrity's life and career. In the case of Prince, there has so far been no crime alleged much less committed and if he simply died of a health problem or even an OD when he ws alone at home, it could be handled in a couple of paragraphs of his main article with an additional section for public reactions. TheBlinkster ( talk) 11:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Tentative keep pending additional media coverage, but without any prejudice towards deleting the article for the time being per WP:TOOEARLY. Prince is a pop culture icon and has had a huge influence on a great many subsequent musicians. His sudden death at such a young age is a significant event, and I foresee it meriting its own article in the near future. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete, or specifically, merge into Prince (musician) and Reactions to the death of Prince, as it's already largely duplicative of them. Recreate if his death becomes suspicious (i.e. homicide or neglect as with Michael Jackson). –  void xor 19:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep – as articles grow, they are subject to WP:SPLIT. If this material were in the Prince article, it would naturally be split off to this title. This is how we accommodate expansion of subjects:

If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is often appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles. In some cases, refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia).

And since Prince's death has gotten coverage worldwide, with articles in major newspapers dedicated specifically to it, rather than merely an obituary listing, it is a notable event. The Transhumanist 01:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete—the article could only end up as a dumping ground for empty celebrity statements. Totally unencyclopaedic. Curly Turkey 🍁  ¡gobble! 05:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep- I don't understand why Michael Jackson gets a death article and David Bowie gets a death article but Prince would not...? Fireflyfanboy ( talk) 07:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I see where you're coming from but do keep WP:OTHERSTUFF in mind. And if there isn't a reason for that separate article, then we don't want to potentially add sewage to a polluted pond. Dark Knight 2149 14:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect: Either option is suitable. I don't believe that this is notable enough for a separate article at the moment. Dark Knight 2149 14:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• merge and redirect Jackson's death was controversial, public and well sourced. Prince's (and Bowie's) was quite the opposite. He's a major figure and warrants extensive coverage across a number of articles, articles on lists of albums or lists of collaborators would be justified - but his death is not. Not because he's not notable, but because the manner of his death wasn't. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Actually his death is still in the news on probable cause, if it had been a routine non notable event then why are the most recent sources talking about pain killers? [8] - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• What substantive content is being discussed about Prince's death? We know nothing, we are hearing nothing. Bowie's death was barely discussed, the coverage was far more about people's massive reactions to it. His death though was uncontroversial: it was sudden, unexpected and unquestioned (Bowie isn't claimed to still be working in a chipshop with Elvis). Similarly for Prince: unexpected, yet the rapid funeral suggests that the post mortem suggested no controversial aspect to it. Most of all though, there is no larger story to it: he was suddenly ill and died. This isn't the Michael Jackson story of drawn-out medical misdeed. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply

More potential content is also out there though regarding his lack of a will (who will inherit), as well as a sealed vault of unreleased music. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Merge with Prince's main article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Death of Prince and then merge Reactions to the death of Prince to that article. The delete rationale comes off rather cold; at any rate, although he has been dead for less than a week, enough reliable sources do appear to be present in the article. And since this and the "reactions" article were created by the same editor, I just bundled the latter AfD with this one. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep briefly (a week or two). Prince was a celebrity and information about the cause of death is still to come. After the hubbub dies down, merge with the regular Prince article. Squad51 ( talk) 01:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• THIS AFD IS CLOSED OR SHOULD BE CLOSED. THE RESULT IS KEEP OR SHOULD BE KEEP. SEE /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reactions_to_the_death_of_Prince BOTH THE REACTIONS TO THE DEATH OF PRINCE AND THE DEATH OF PRINCE AFDS WERE AT THE SAME TIME. THE REACTIONS TO THE DEATH OF PRINCE WAS DECIDED AS A REDIRECT TO THE DEATH OF PRINCE. THEREFORE, THE DEATH OF PRINCE IS A KEEP. IT IS NOT PROPER TO HAVE A REDIRECT TO A DELETED ARTICLE WHEN BOTH AFDS ARE SIMULTANEOUS. Also note that User:Bentogoa re-opened this AFD, which was closed already...ok, I do not agree with reopening it but so be it. Whiskeymouth ( talk) 06:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • First of all, please don't shout (which is basically what ALL CAPS BOLD is.) Secondly, as far as I can see, that AFD was procedurally closed as being superseded by this one, not as being a redirect. Furthermore, if there are two AFDs at the same time, I'm not aware of any rule which requires their results to be "consistent" in the way you suggest. If we have an article on A and an article on B, and an AFD is launched for A and then shortly thereafter for B, and then even if A is closed as a redirect to B, that doesn't automatically end the discussion at B, or force any particular outcome of the discussion at B. SJK ( talk) 07:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The amount which we actually know at the moment about how Prince died is very little. While there was a great reaction to his death, we don't need to exhaustively document that, just highlight the more significant aspects of it (probably at least Obama and Spike Lee, maybe a few more quotes, but it doesn't need to go on for paragraphs.) Now, in the future, if e.g. his death resulted in legal proceedings, or something like that, there might be enough information to actually need a separate article to cover his death or its consequences. But I don't see that need right now. SJK ( talk) 07:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Whenever a major celebrity or public figure dies, there is inevitably a major public reaction. That does not make the death itself notable apart from the celebrity.— indopug ( talk) 09:30, 29 April 2016 (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.