Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Biehl


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Amy Biehl

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article appears to be a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Although the murder of a young person is tragic, there is no reason to have a Wikipedia article on that person if that is the only reason they are considered notable. If the crime itself is notable, then an separate article (with independent sourcing) needs to be created asserting its own notability, and the information in this article can be merged. Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 14:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Our article is very badly sourced, but there are some 600 hits on her name in Google Books, many of which appear usable as nontrivial sources about her. A clear pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I fail to see how Amy Biehl is independently notable outside of the event (i.e. her murder). WP:VICTIM clearly states "a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission". I'd like to restate my suggestion that, assuming that this crime is notable, an article should be created regarding to cover the event. The information from the Amy Biehl article can then be included in the event article to provide complete and encyclopedic coverage of the case. Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 14:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From WP:BIO1E: "However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." My opinion is that the wealth of coverage of the Biehl case justifies a separate article about her. In any case, the nomination isn't a request to merge her article with one about the incident she became involved in, as BIO1E suggests for incidents with lesser coverage — merge requests aren't handled through AfD and no merge target exists. Rather, it's a request to delete this information from the encyclopedia altogether. That would obviously be the wrong thing to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fully cognizant of what AFD is for, I was simply suggesting a merge to an appropriate target as a potential option. AFD discusions do sometimes close as "merge to article x". If you tagging the article for rescue results in a policy compliant article, then everyone wins. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 15:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The topic has great notability being covered in detail in numerous books. The nominator seems to want someone to move/merge the content for him.  AFD is not an article editing service. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not looking for anyone to do anything for me. I nominated the article for deletion per WP:VICTIM which I quoted above. How is Amy Biehl notable outside of her murder? If she is an important figure as a result of her murder, what changes in law, attidudes etc, resulted from her death? If that information was included and reliably sourced then I could understand the importance of the article, but in its current state it simply appears to be a memorial page for the victim of a tragic crime. If, by bringing this page to AfD and having a light shined on it, the article becomes properly sourced and notability is established then that is a positive outcome. Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it necessary for her to be notable ourside her murder? Isn't it sufficient that she be notable, and that there is enough media coverage about her instead of just about the event to write an article? We don't ask politicians to be notable for something other than their political offices; we don't ask athletes to be notable for anything more than their athletics. For that matter we don't ask Pokemon characters to be notable for something other than being a Pokemon character. So if someone is independently notable for being a victim (as happens rarely, but as I believe is the case here) then why would we ask for her to be notable in some other way as well? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Click on the Google book search. She gets a lot of coverage in books.  Its not about the crime, but what happened as a result of this.  One book is titled "Forgiveness: breaking the chain of hate"‎ and mentions her story on Page 172.   D r e a m Focus  23:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Many people would find this discussion quite offensive about the possibility of deleting this article. Amy Biehl did become famous due to the way in which she was murdered; however, she lived a short yet valuable life in which she inspired many people (see {Paul Theroux's Dark Star Safari for a further discussion of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addis10april (talk • contribs) — Addis10april (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - meets criteria of WP:GNP. Andy14and16 (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources are out there. Especially about her having a High School named after her. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.