View source for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Prince

← Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Prince
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:
This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 44.210.0.0/16 has been blocked by ‪ST47‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a web host's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~}}. You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and they should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 07:26, 6 August 2027. Your current IP address is 44.210.235.220.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
This IP address range has been globally blocked.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

This block affects editing on all Wikimedia wikis.
The IP address or range 44.210.0.0/16 has been globally blocked by ‪AntiCompositeNumber‬ for the following reason(s):

Open proxy/Webhost: Visit the FAQ if you are affected

This block will expire on 13:55, 18 March 2025. Your current IP address is 44.210.235.220.

Even while globally blocked, you will usually still be able to edit pages on Meta-Wiki.

If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

Other useful links: Global blocks · Help:I have been blocked
You can view and copy the source of this page:
<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2016 June 26}}</noinclude>
<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2016 June 8}}</noinclude>
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

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. <small>[[Wikipedia:NACD#Non-administrators_closing_discussions|(non-admin&nbsp;closure)]]</small> [[User talk:SSTflyer|SST<span style="color:DarkSlateGray">flyer</span>]] 12:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
===[[Death of Prince]]===


{{notavote}}

:{{la|Death of Prince}}
:{{la|Reactions to the death of Prince}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Prince|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 22#{{anchorencode:Death of Prince}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_of_Prince Stats]</span>)
:({{Find sources AFD|Death of Prince}})
There's nothing even remotely notable about his death to warrant a separate article.  He died, end of story.  The Prince article is sufficient. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span>  18:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 18:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

*'''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. [[User:KDTW Flyer|KDTW Flyer]] ([[User talk:KDTW Flyer|talk]]) 00:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
**inre "I don't know ..." Er.... Search "Death of..." I'd dare say there are close to a hundred over of such articles. [[User:Kingoflettuce|Kingoflettuce]] ([[User talk:Kingoflettuce|talk]]) 08:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
** 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]].  [[User talk:The Transhumanist|<i>The&nbsp;Transhumanist</i>]] 10:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''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. [[User:JayJay|<b><span style="color:#FF0000;">Jay</span></b>]][[Special:Contributions/JayJay|<b><span style="color:#0000FF;">Jay</span></b>]][[User talk:JayJay|<sup><span style="color:black;">What did I do?</span></sup>]] 19:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
:<s>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. {{rpa}} Nomination of this as an AFD and the nominator making the budding article worse by removing stuff is [wrong].<sup>{{rpa}}</sup> 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, {{rpa}}.[[User:Purple Showers|Purple Showers]] ([[User talk:Purple Showers|talk]]) 20:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)</s>
::<small>'''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. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 03:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
:::<small>Struck !vote of block-evading sockpuppet. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 03:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
*'''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.[[User:KDTW Flyer|KDTW Flyer]] ([[User talk:KDTW Flyer|talk]]) 00:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
:1) It's "its" not "it's". 2) Duplicate !vote [[User:Kingoflettuce|Kingoflettuce]] ([[User talk:Kingoflettuce|talk]]) 08:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' the article. His death can be expanded on, if necessary on the Prince Wikipedia page. [[Special:Contributions/2601:483:101:9BDD:6882:19B3:F900:F6D8|2601:483:101:9BDD:6882:19B3:F900:F6D8]] ([[User talk:2601:483:101:9BDD:6882:19B3:F900:F6D8|talk]]) 22:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
:The Prince Wikipedia article is already over 125KB, per [[WP:SIZE]] this is a valid content fork. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 00:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::All this IP has ever done is to comment on this. [[User:Kingoflettuce|Kingoflettuce]] ([[User talk:Kingoflettuce|talk]]) 08:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. If anyone feels strongly that this article has potential, that user should work on it in their sandbox for now. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] ([[User talk:Pegship|talk]]) 22:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
:::<del>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. [[User:Purple Showers|Purple Showers]] ([[User talk:Purple Showers|talk]]) 23:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)</del><br /><small>As noted above, this user has been indefinitely blocked. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 03:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
::::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. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] ([[User talk:Pegship|talk]]) 23:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:SwisterTwister|<span style="color:green;">'''S'''wister'''T'''wister</span>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]] 23:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music|list of Music-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:SwisterTwister|<span style="color:green;">'''S'''wister'''T'''wister</span>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]] 23:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America|list of United States of America-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:SwisterTwister|<span style="color:green;">'''S'''wister'''T'''wister</span>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]] 23:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
*'''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. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 23:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 00:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I am seeing notable tributes in the form of cover songs dedicated to Prince by [[Chris Cornell]] [http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/hear-chris-cornells-passionate-prince-tribute-nothing-compares-2-u-20160422], to having his music goto #1 on the Billboard top #200. [http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/7341679/prince-the-very-best-of-album-headed-no-1-billboard-200]. There are also questions on who will inherit his fortune. [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-will-inherit-princes-musical-fortune/] per [[WP:LASTING]] this should be kept, and improved upon. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 00:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::His Ex-wife is also building a school in his honor. [http://www.people.com/article/prince-ex-wife-manuela-testolini-building-school] - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 00:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Dirroli|Dirroli]] ([[User talk:Dirroli|talk]]) 03:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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 [[WP:NOTNEWS|NEWS]] reporting of Prince's death. A well-known entertainer died.  Happens all the time. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 00:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::{{re|User: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. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 00:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::: 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. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 01:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: 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. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 01:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::{{re|Softlavender}} Which speedy delete criteria do you think this meets? <span style="font:bold 1em Century">[[User:Rebbing|<span style="background:#f660ab;color:#60f6f6">&nbsp;Rebb</span>]][[User_talk:Rebbing|<span style="background:#60f6f6;color:#f660ab">ing&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 01:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:::A10. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 01:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Note the bolded text in the policy: [[WP:A10|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. <span style="font:bold 1em Century">[[User:Rebbing|<span style="background:#f660ab;color:#60f6f6">&nbsp;Rebb</span>]][[User_talk:Rebbing|<span style="background:#60f6f6;color:#f660ab">ing&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 02:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::::: I never said it was "a candidate for speedy deletion"; I merely !voted that it should be speedily deleted. This is AfD, not CSD. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 03:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as per [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]].—[[User:Sixteen Left|SixtLeft]] ([[User talk:Sixteen Left|talk]]) 01:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*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: {{u|Muboshgu}}, {{u|Sunshineisles2}}, {{u|SwisterTwister}}, {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}, {{u|The Almightey Drill}}, {{u|Kencf0618}}, {{u|Adog104}}, {{u|Camilo Sanchez}}, {{u|NinjaRobotPirate}}, {{u|Rebbing}}, {{u|Zerbey}}, {{u|Mlpearc}}, {{u|Mtaylor848}}, {{u|SNUGGUMS}}, {{u|InedibleHulk}}. -- [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 01:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC) By the way I forgot {{u|EvergreenFir}}, who was the nominator of that article. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 07:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Whiskeymouth|Whiskeymouth]] ([[User talk:Whiskeymouth|talk]]) 03:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:::{{re|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 ([[special:diff/716606058|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."). <span style="font:bold 1em Century">[[User:Rebbing|<span style="background:#f660ab;color:#60f6f6">&nbsp;Rebb</span>]][[User_talk:Rebbing|<span style="background:#60f6f6;color:#f660ab">ing&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 04:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b>]] ([[User talk:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#454545">talk</b>]] / [[Special:Contributions/SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#454545">edits</b>]]) 01:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''.  No need for this as of now.  It can always be recreated if more information is discovered later. --[[User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;">Ser Amantio di Nicolao</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao|''Che dicono a Signa?'']]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ser Amantio di Nicolao|'''Lo dicono a Signa.''']]</sub> 01:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''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. [[User:Kencf0618|kencf0618]] ([[User talk:Kencf0618|talk]]) 02:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Redirect''' to [[Prince#Illness and death]] per section below <s>Delete</s> 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), [[WP:CRYSTAL|Wikipedia is not a crystal ball]] so we should wait until it ''is'' independently notable which is not now. [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] ([[User talk:Wugapodes|talk]]) 02:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Whiskeymouth|Whiskeymouth]] ([[User talk:Whiskeymouth|talk]]) 02:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Dirroli|Dirroli]] ([[User talk:Dirroli|talk]]) 03:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::not true, once destroyed and deleted, nobody will create it for fear of being banned using the excuse "disruption" or "vandalism". [[User:Whiskeymouth|Whiskeymouth]] ([[User talk:Whiskeymouth|talk]]) 03:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Respectfully, that's nonsense. Or comedy. [[User:Dirroli|Dirroli]] ([[User talk:Dirroli|talk]]) 03:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:TheDomain|TheDomain]] ([[User talk:TheDomain|talk]]) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''delete''' per nom. No way a separate article is needed.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 03:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:::'''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.<br />
:::* "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.<br />
:::* "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.<br />
:::* "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 [[User:Whiskeymouth|Whiskeymouth]] ([[User talk:Whiskeymouth|talk]]) 03:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 04:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::::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]]. [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] ([[User talk:Wugapodes|talk]]) 04:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Yup. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 04:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::You haven't countered the [[WP:LASTING]] argument I provided above, these discussions are measured on weights of comments not by [[WP:VOTE]]s. I do not see any difference between this article and [[Death of David Bowie]]. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::[[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. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 04:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::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. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 04:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::: 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. [[User:Crystal.seed|Crystal.seed]] ([[User talk:Crystal.seed|talk]]) 05:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC) 
:::::::::: I have to personally agree that [[Death of David Bowie]] is largely trivial, [[WP:NOTNEWS|NEWS]]-type, dog-bites-man, extremely redundant stuff and should be deleted. There was nothing significant about his death; he died quietly of cancer. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 05:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::: 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. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 17:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' until such time that there is consensus at [[Talk:Prince (musician)]] that a [[WP:SPINOFF|spinoff]] is warranted. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 03:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Whiskeymouth|Whiskeymouth]] ([[User talk:Whiskeymouth|talk]]) 04:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk: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. [[WP:POVFORK|Article creation shouldn't be used as an end-run around consensus]]. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 06:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I think everything this article says or might say can fit inside the article on Prince in a sub-section named appropriately. [[User:Ralphw|Ralphw]] ([[User talk:Ralphw|talk]]) 03:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Abstain''' Carry on deleting. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 04:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:KyuuA4|KyuuA4]] ([[User_talk:KyuuA4|Talk:キュウ]]) 06:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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.  [[User:Magnum Serpentine|Magnum Serpentine]] ([[User talk:Magnum Serpentine|talk]]) 06:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::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. &mdash;[[User:BillC|<span style="background:#803020;color:white;font-variant:small-caps">'''BillC'''</span>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:BillC|talk]]</sup> 10:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Not enough to have its own article. [[User:Sander.v.Ginkel|Sander.v.Ginkel]] <sup>([[User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel|Talk]])</sup> 08:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Hollth|Hollth]] ([[User talk:Hollth|talk]]) 08:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' and write something similar within the Prince article. We have a section on his death there, no need for a sub-article. --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 09:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''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 [[User:Leprof 7272|Leprof 7272]] ([[User talk:Leprof 7272|talk]]) 09:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Redirect''' for time being, the content might get large enough to be spun out into this article but right now it's [[WP:TOOSOON]]. [[WP:LASTING|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). [[User:TutterMouse|tutterMouse]] ([[User talk:TutterMouse|talk]]) 10:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Delete/redirect'''. There is nothing that makes his death, while sad, in any way different and more notable to any other famous person's. &mdash;[[User:BillC|<span style="background:#803020;color:white;font-variant:small-caps">'''BillC'''</span>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:BillC|talk]]</sup> 10:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' Thanks [[User:Softlavender|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 [[Death of Michael Jackson|drug overdose]] which resulted in a [[California v. Murray|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. [[User:Adog104|'''<span style="color:#8FBCE6">A</span><span style="color:#092C5C">dog</span><span style="color:#F5D130">104</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Adog104|<span style="color:#2EB347">'''''Talk to me'''''</span>]]</sup> 13:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''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.[[User:&#42;Treker|&#42;Treker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|talk]]) 14:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*''' 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]]. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 14:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events|list of Events-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 15:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
*'''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 {{oldid|Prince (musician)|716746126|current revision}}. [[User:Sam Sailor|Sam Sailor]] [[User talk:Sam Sailor|<sup>''Talk!''</sup>]] 16:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Sam Sailor|Sam Sailor]] [[User talk:Sam Sailor|<sup>''Talk!''</sup>]] 16:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Satisfies Wikipedia criteria for notability. Enough information to support an article and too much information for the large Prince (biography article) to accommodate. [[User:TeacherA|TeacherA]] ([[User talk:TeacherA|talk]]) 18:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
** Check [[Michael Jackson|Michael Jackson's]], [[John F. Kennedy|John F. Kennedy's]], [[Paul Walker|Paul Walker's]] pages, any category can never be too long, but it has to be [[WP:GNG]] if it warrants itself an article. [[User:Adog104|'''<span style="color:#8FBCE6">A</span><span style="color:#092C5C">dog</span><span style="color:#F5D130">104</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Adog104|<span style="color:#2EB347">'''''Talk to me'''''</span>]]</sup> 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
***The events of his death have already been proven as notable through multiple [[WP:RS]], what are you talking about? - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 23:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC) 
*'''Redirect''' to relevant section in [[Prince (musician)]] — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 21:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''': [[User:JayJay]] summed it nicely. -- [[User:2ReinreB2|2ReinreB2]] ([[User talk:2ReinreB2|talk]]) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''': Seems like the best option to me for now. –[[User:Qpalzmmzlapq|<span style="color:#22344E"><b>Qpalzmmzlapq</b></span>]] [[User talk:Qpalzmmzlapq|'''T''']] [[Special:Contribs/Qpalzmmzlapq|'''C''']] 02:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Delete and merge with main Prince article''', similar to how there's no separate "Death of [[Elvis Presley]]" article, both being significant musical icons. [[User:Arbor to SJ|Arbor to SJ]] ([[User talk:Arbor to SJ|talk]]) 03:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
**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. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Post-haste Deletion''' Torch building on fire. Celebrity worship is pretentious, it's definitely not encyclopedic. [[User:Crystal.seed|Crystal.seed]] ([[User talk:Crystal.seed|talk]]) 04:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
** "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? [[User talk:The Transhumanist|<i>The&nbsp;Transhumanist</i>]] 08:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
:'''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.''' [[User:Crystal.seed|Crystal.seed]] ([[User talk:Crystal.seed|talk]]) 17:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
:::See [[WP:NOTNEWS]], [[WP:NOTMEMORIAL]], [[WP:NOTEVERYTHING]], and [[WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE]]. They should answer your questions. -- [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 08:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
:::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. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b>]] 08:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::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. [[User:Whiskeymouth|Whiskeymouth]] ([[User talk:Whiskeymouth|talk]]) 05:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
::::{{u|HighInBC}}, {{noping|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? [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 09:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::It will have to be someone else. I am involved in this content dispute and thus cannot act in an admin in this matter. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b>]] 09:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' to Illness and death section in [[Prince (musician)]]. Seems to me the most sensible solution. '''''[[User:Katastasi|<span style="color:#CD7F32;">κ</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Katastasi|<span style="color:#CD7F32;">ατάστασ</span>]]</small>[[Special:Contributions/Katastasi|<span style="color:#CD7F32;">η</span>]]''''' 04:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
::::'''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. [[User:Whiskeymouth|Whiskeymouth]] ([[User talk:Whiskeymouth|talk]]) 05:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 05:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*{{Facepalm}}: The article creator has created [[:Category:Notable deaths of musicians]]. -- [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 05:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b>]] 05:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
:::The continuing coverage about his death and related aspects is very notable. [[User:Whiskeymouth|Whiskeymouth]] ([[User talk:Whiskeymouth|talk]]) 05:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
::::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]]. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b>]] 15:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Kingoflettuce|Kingoflettuce]] ([[User talk:Kingoflettuce|talk]]) 08:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
:*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 [[WP:RECENTISM|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. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b>]] 08:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
::*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. [[User:Kingoflettuce|Kingoflettuce]] ([[User talk:Kingoflettuce|talk]]) 09:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
:::*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. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b>]] 09:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 08:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Whiskeymouth|Whiskeymouth]] ([[User talk:Whiskeymouth|talk]]) 05:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''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]]. [[User:MackyBeth|MackyBeth]] ([[User talk:MackyBeth|talk]]) 10:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' --[[User:ThurnerRupert|ThurnerRupert]] ([[User talk:ThurnerRupert|talk]]) 11:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Please Keeeep!''' --[[User:SlimShady1017|SlimShady1017]] People need to know the truth and cold-hard facts regarding his death.Please maintain the article.  <small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 13:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''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. - [[User:Takeaway|Takeaway]] ([[User talk:Takeaway|talk]]) 13:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' any meaningful content is already in the main article. '''[[User:Lugnuts|<span style="color:#002bb8;">Lugnuts</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Dick Laurent is dead]]</sup> 14:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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.  <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Thank you very much wiki|Thank you very much wiki]] ([[User talk:Thank you very much wiki|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thank you very much wiki|contribs]]) 14:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> <small>— [[User:Thank you very much wiki|Thank you very much wiki]] ([[User talk:Thank you very much wiki|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thank you very much wiki|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
*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. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 15:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
::<small>If it were JFK-fishy, the investigation would be overseen by the guy sucked into the power vacuum. [http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/7341798/lady-gaga-mourns-prince-on-social-media Lady Gaga], [http://www.olisa.tv/2015/12/05/prince-insinuates-that-lady-gaga-paid-for-billboards-women-of-the-year-award-in-leaked-letter/ perhaps.] [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 21:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC) </small>
*'''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. [[User:Liz|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; font-size:medium; color:#800080;">'''''L'''''iz</span>]] <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|<b style="color:#006400;">''Read!''</b>]] [[User talk:Liz|<b style="color:#006400;">''Talk!''</b>]]</sup> 15:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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 [[WP:NOTNEWS|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. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 16:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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.   <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.114.1.204|75.114.1.204]] ([[User talk:75.114.1.204|talk]]) 16:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> <<small>— [[User:75.114.1.204|75.114.1.204]] ([[User talk:75.114.1.204|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/75.114.1.204|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
*'''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. [[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 19:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:Richhoncho|Richhoncho]] ([[User talk:Richhoncho|talk]]) 21:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Interesting details, which need not to be mentioned in the Prince main article. [[User:Erdenstern|Erdenstern]] ([[User talk:Erdenstern|talk]]) 21:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Erdenstern|Erdenstern]] ([[User talk:Erdenstern|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erdenstern|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> 
::This editor also has not edited a bunch of crap just to build up edit counts. [[User:Whiskeymouth|Whiskeymouth]] ([[User talk:Whiskeymouth|talk]]) 05:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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 [[Death of Michael Jackson|Michael Jackson]] or [[Death of Kurt Cobain|Kurt Cobain]]), then I think it would make sense to have an article dedicated to his death. [[User:Gottagotospace|Gottagotospace]] ([[User talk:Gottagotospace|talk]]) 22:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
:: 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. [[User:Crystal.seed|Crystal.seed]] ([[User talk:Crystal.seed|talk]]) 23:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Realism in a high-profile music industry death? [[Paul is dead|That's preposterous]]. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 01:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Unless the autopsy triggers a criminal investigation there is no reason for this to be on a separate page to the main article.  [[User:Zerbey|Zerbey]] ([[User talk:Zerbey|talk]]) 13:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
:Nah, that would only add maybe 4 additional sentences, at most. [[User:Crystal.seed|Crystal.seed]] ([[User talk:Crystal.seed|talk]]) 16:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 17:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Whiskeymouth|Whiskeymouth]] ([[User talk:Whiskeymouth|talk]]) 05:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
:*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. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 17:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
:::If he died a week ago, how can anything attest to the "enduring notability" of his death? [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 21:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 
::::::That logic would disqualify most of Wikipedia, except 9-11 and the President. [[User:Whiskeymouth|Whiskeymouth]] ([[User talk:Whiskeymouth|talk]]) 05:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::[[Pteranodon]], [[Daugava (river)|Daugava]] and [[Vameq II Dadiani]] aren't from last week, either. Might be a few more. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 18:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' More sources showing that Price's death had an impact. [http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/prince-takes-top-slots-billboard-200/story?id=38650019] "Prince Takes Top Two Slots in Billboard 200" [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/princes-death-sharply-impacts-sales-of-his-music/] "Prince's death sharply impacts sales of his music" There is also his unreleased music. [http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Arts&Leisure&title=with-mythic-vaultsprince-could-alsobe-prolificposthumously&id=126488] - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 17:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 19:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' The content on this page should be on [[Prince (musician)#Illness and death]]. It doesn't need it's own page. —<span style="font-family:'century gothic';background:black;border-radius:2em 0;">&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User:Dainomite|<span style="color:#FFFF00">dain</span>]][[User_talk:Dainomite#top|<span style="color:#A9A9A9">omite</span>]]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 18:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Whiskeymouth|Whiskeymouth]] ([[User talk:Whiskeymouth|talk]]) 05:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 10:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Mercurywoodrose|Mercurywoodrose]] ([[User talk:Mercurywoodrose|talk]]) 17:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
:: 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. [[User:Crystal.seed|Crystal.seed]] ([[User talk:Crystal.seed|talk]]) 19:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Still more prestigious than [http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/americas-hottest-weather-forecasters 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. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 19:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
::::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 [[User:Crystal.seed|Crystal.seed]] ([[User talk:Crystal.seed|talk]]) 19:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Smoking and single. Shall we have an article about her dead husband? It's [http://www.foxla.com/good-day/good-day-la-features/7741333-story good enough for Fox.] Joking aside again, [[glioblastoma multiforme]] could use some awareness. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 20:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::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]]. – [[User:AJona1992|<span style="font-family:cursive;">jona</span>]] [[User talk:AJona1992|✉]] 21:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::: 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. [[User:Crystal.seed|Crystal.seed]] ([[User talk:Crystal.seed|talk]]) 01:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' His death is unusual for someone this young and for his status, it will be too much to summarize in the main article. -- [[User:Green Cardamom|<span style="color:#006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User_talk:Green Cardamom|<span style="color:#009933;">'''C'''</span>]] 20:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
:It [[Prince (musician)#Illness and death|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. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User Talk: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. [[User:TheBlinkster|TheBlinkster]] ([[User talk:TheBlinkster|talk]]) 02:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
:: 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. [[User:Crystal.seed|Crystal.seed]] ([[User talk:Crystal.seed|talk]]) 05:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
:::''"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 Beatles|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 [[Imagine (John Lennon song)|imagined]] someone making such an assertion if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 09:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
:::*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. [[User:TheBlinkster|TheBlinkster]] ([[User talk:TheBlinkster|talk]]) 11:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 09:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''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 [[Death of Michael Jackson|Michael Jackson]]). –&nbsp;<kbd>[[User:voidxor|<span style="color: #00F">void</span>]][[User talk:voidxor|<span style="color: #000">xor</span>]]</kbd> 19:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' &ndash; 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:
: <blockquote>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).</blockquote>
: 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. [[User talk:The Transhumanist|<i>The&nbsp;Transhumanist</i>]] 01:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''—the article could only end up as a dumping ground for empty celebrity statements.  Totally unencyclopaedic. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly&nbsp;Turkey]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;[[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 05:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Strong keep'''- I don't understand why [[Michael Jackson]] gets a [[Death of Michael Jackson|death article]] and [[David Bowie]] gets a [[Death of David Bowie|death article]] but Prince would not...?[[User:Fireflyfanboy|Fireflyfanboy]] ([[User talk:Fireflyfanboy|talk]]) 07:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
** 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 [[WP:SEWAGE|add sewage to a polluted pond]]. '''[[User:Darkknight2149|Dark]]'''[[User talk:Darkknight2149|Knight]]'''[[Special:Contributions/Darkknight2149|2149]]''' 14:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Delete or redirect:''' Either option is suitable. I don't believe that this is notable enough for a separate article ''at the moment''. '''[[User:Darkknight2149|Dark]]'''[[User talk:Darkknight2149|Knight]]'''[[Special:Contributions/Darkknight2149|2149]]''' 14:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

{{hat|Collapsing redundant section; closing admin assesses consensus, no need for a subsection about consensus. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 02:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)|}}
==== <big>Delete or redirect?</big> ====
Despite all of the votes to delete the article, I started this subsection, as I feel that whether the article should be deleted or redirected (assuming that it cannot remain) is another question that should be addressed.  Since [[WP:RAC|redirects are cheap]], and articles can contain valuable history, I feel that this search term as well as [[Reactions to the death of Prince]] should not be deleted. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 18:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

* <s>Section redirect</s> to [[Prince (musician)#Illness and death]]. This seems obvious for three reasons: don't break existing links, help people searching for his death, and allow for a [[WP:SPLIT|split]] if the article is ever recreated (see [[WP:NOTBROKEN]]). –&nbsp;<kbd>[[User:voidxor|<span style="color: #00F">void</span>]][[User talk:voidxor|<span style="color: #000">xor</span>]]</kbd> 19:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
::<small>Striking duplicate !vote. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 02:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
::You already said you wanted to delete or merge article above, please either amend that opinion or strike this one. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 20:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

<small> Duplicate !vote removed.</small> Do you want to be murdered by a bullet or by torture? Neither. I suppose bullets are better than torture, just as redirect is better than delete. Sorry for being so blunt but my vote has been subject to vandalism many times.[[User:Thank you very much wiki|Thank you very much wiki]] ([[User talk:Thank you very much wiki|talk]]) 20:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
:<small> Duplicate !vote removed. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 01:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)</small>

*'''Close this section''' You cant double vote in an AfD, the people who want the article kept have valid reasoning as well. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 20:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
::Done. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 02:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
{{hab}}
* '''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. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
:*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? [http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/prescription-drugs-found-with-prince-at-the-time-of-his-death/ar-BBslEjn?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp] - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 14:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
::* 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. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
::::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. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 14:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' with Prince's main article. [[User:White Arabian Filly|<span style="color:#3BB9FF">White Arabian Filly</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:White Arabian Filly|<span style="color:mediumblue">Neigh</span>]]</sup> 16:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User talk:Erpert|blah, blah, blah...]]</span></sup></small> 21:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Squad51|Squad51]] ([[User talk:Squad51|talk]]) 01:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''THIS AFD IS CLOSED OR SHOULD BE CLOSED. THE RESULT IS KEEP OR SHOULD BE KEEP. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. ''' [[User:Whiskeymouth|Whiskeymouth]] ([[User talk:Whiskeymouth|talk]]) 06:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
**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. [[User:SJK|SJK]] ([[User talk:SJK|talk]]) 07:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:SJK|SJK]] ([[User talk:SJK|talk]]) 07:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''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.—[[User:Indopug|indopug]] ([[User talk:Indopug|talk]]) 09:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):
Template:Article links (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Clear (view source) (protected)
Template:Delrevxfd (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Encodefirst (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Facepalm (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Find general sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Find sources AFD (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hab (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hat (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hidden archive bottom (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hidden archive top (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hidden archive top/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ifsubst (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:La (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Mbox (view source) (protected)
Template:No ping (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Noping (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Not a ballot (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Notavote (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Oldid (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ombox (view source) (protected)
Template:Personal attack removed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Re (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reply (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reply to (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Rpa (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Template other (view source) (protected)
Template:U (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:User link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:YesNo (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Find sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/links (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/templates/Find general sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ombox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:MultiReplace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:No ping (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Reply to (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Return to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Prince.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_of_Prince"