Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Svidersky (5th nomination)

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 keep. This is already the 5th AfD closed as keep... anyway, a possible mergre or other editorial issues can be discussed outside AfD. Tone 20:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anna Svidersky[edit]

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

Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL. Nothing against the people who loved her, but almost everything here is already covered in her own part of Mourning Sickness --mitchsurp (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL and neither is this article. A memorial is for subjective and emotional tributes. The article is written according to wikipedia policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. It has been extensively discussed in great detail by a number of experienced editors to arrive at the current text, specifically to avoid inappropriate material. The only justification for the accusation of NOTMEMORIAL is the fact that she is dead, a rationale which would necessitate the deletion of a vast number of articles. I note that "almost everything" is covered in Mourning Sickness, so obviously everything is not covered. For everything to be covered adequately it would be necessary to transfer the text of the article into the mourning sickness article, which would be inappropriate and the reason we have a WP:SUMMARY methodology, so that people who wish to find out more can go to where the more detailed examination of the subject exists. The fact that she is considered to be important enough to merit her own section in the mourning sickness article is a reason to keep the article on her, not to delete it. The inclusion of some material from one article in a second is not a reason for deleting the first article. Sviderdsky has in a most unfortunate way achieved individual notability, rather more in fact than Mourning sickness. The fact that the latter received 473 views in August,[1] and Anna Svidersky received 3454,[2] speaks for that. As the article has been nominated four times before, the first "no consensus" and the last three all "keeps", I consider this nom to be inappropriate. WP:CCC, but there is no change of external circumstances to justify the expectation that it will in this case. Ty 02:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep Contra Tyrenius, a MEMORIAL can be factual also and fail the test--the key factor is whether it gives information that would make a person notable. However, there was a non-consensus in May 06, a keep in May 08, and another in December 08. I think it is likely to be the consensus that in this case the specific phenomena concerning her are sufficient to make her notable. Personally, I'm not at all sure I agree, but this is probably within our standards. If it gets kept again, I think it would be highly improper to renominate unless our standards change for the much more restrictive. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Extremely weak keep, and if kept, Rename to Death of Anna Svidersky. She is not notable as a person, her death is the thing that is notable here, if anything is. We do not normally keep articles on victims who were not otherwise notable and usually rename them to cover the event that suggests notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or redirect and merge with the Mourning Sickness article, where she has a section devoted to her. The whole point of her notability is the sensation surrounding her death, right? It's not specifically her, as she did not become notable until some time after her death, regardless of what she might have done while alive (not listed anywhere in the article). mitchsurp (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Notable person and event, not an emotional memorial, per Ty. Crum375 (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per previous decisions, or at least redirect to Mourning sickness. I've never entirely understood why it is ok for assassins & killers to be notable for a single act, but not victims who have recived huge publicity. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep- My logic remains unchanged from the previous AFD. Espescialy considering the deletion rationale is pretty much the same. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep "Deja Vu all over again"...Modernist (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. No change in relevant circumstances, no new information, there no reason to overturn previous lack of consensus to delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Delete - Not individually notable, and I don't think we make articles about the death of random people. Maybe merge with the relevant trial, if it exists.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 15:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect or merge and redirect to the section about her on the Mourning sickness article. She is not notable for anything other than the reaction to her death, and that article can contain all the biographical detail about her that is needed for context without becoming a memorial. Therefore there is no need to keep this largely duplicative article, but the title should be retained as a redirect as a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I think there is something to be said for consistency and precedent on this one....while this is probably a borderline case of notability, in my opinion, the previous verdicts on recent AfDs strongly argue for not revisiting this unless something has changed in the iterim (keeping in mind the "once notable, always notable" principle) Vartanza (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I think the "keep" folks are missing a key factor: the article isn't even about the subject! Rather, it's about the murder and the aftermath. At the very least, redirect to Mourning sickness as outside of her friends and family the subject is regrettably non-notable. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 13:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Keep - notable murder and example of "mournign sickness"; well-sourced story. Not my thing, but the ongoing consensus has been to keep this. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG, a notable murder. Seeing as Brossow (correctly) points out that the article is more about this girl's death than her life, perhaps it should be renamed to Murder of Anna Svidersky or equivalent. Also, seeing as this is the fifth nomination - and all the previous AfDs resulted in 'Keep' - perhaps we can show a little sense and not waste everyone's time in future with more pointless nominations. Giant Snowman 14:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[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.