Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Mladić


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was redirect as suggested below. I looked at the sources and they seem to be written about her father. At any rate what we usually do with people who got the news coverage they did because of their family is to redirect to that family. W.marsh 14:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ana Mladić

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Ana's sole claim to notability is being a daughter of an (in)famous persion. Apart from being unsourced, the article contains some basic biographical data, and the rest is devoted to her suicide, and speculations about reasons thereof. The relevant policies is WP:N, and (while WP:BLP is not applicable) WP:BLP is an interesting reading. Duja ► 08:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The life and death of Ana Mladić is significant in the history of the Balkan wars and continues to be so in the context of the search for her father, a wanted Serbian war criminal. This is hardly a purely private matter and has been covered extensively in the European press and continues to be of interest.  See this BBC story from March 2006  or this  from the Times from February 28, 2006.  Nick mallory 09:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I purposefully didn't urge for deletion in the nomination, but merge seems like more reasonable option. (I didn't even have particular doubt that the article is factual). However, those stories are about Ratko Mladić, as are or  (which is an excerpt from a essayish book by Slavenka Drakulić). But do we have one of (quote from WP:N, emphasis mine):
 * The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
 * If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
 * Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
 * Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.
 * The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.
 * Duja ► 13:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notable subject, BBC & Times as sources, seems to meet WP:N. Carlossuarez46 22:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, she doesn't meet WP:BIO with these references. Please read the sources, and see my comment below. Peacent 15:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets multiple notability requirements.AlphaEta 22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which ones? They're quoted right above. The person wasn't the subject of published secondary sources—it was her father. If she hadn't commited suicide, the world would certainly not even noticed her existence. And I don't think a suicide is exactly a criterion for inclusion or WP:N. Duja ► 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, too. Could you please specify which requirements are met here? Peacent 15:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * interesting precedent of something where the notability depends only on the references, without any intrinsic notability whatsoever. I take it that the consensus is to observe the rule literally that any person at all who is the subject of stories in two different news sources will be N, common sense or no common sense. DGG 06:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's where I disagree on the consensus issue; we also had precedents on the other side, where (IMHO) common sense prevailed. I recall a good argument on (IIRC) some DRV of Gregory Kohs, where one participant mentioned "Queen Mary II enters the Port of Sydney" and "Queen Mary II exits the Port of Sydney" as clear counterexamples of well-referenced and well-covered topics not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I don't buy the "there are two reliable sources" argument for inclusion of pretty much anything (oh, and we have a lots of wikidrama last days on a similar topic). Duja ► 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"If she hadn't commited suicide, the world would certainly not even noticed her existence. And I don't think a suicide is exactly a criterion for inclusion or WP:N"? It's not only the event in itself whose legitimacy as a criterion for inclusion should be considered, it is the implications of the event. There are numerous characters who have left only a tangential mark on history but are nevertheless of significance / interest. Rightly or wrongly the suicide of Ana Mladic has been identified as having contributed to mass slaughter and genocide. Is it unreasonable to have access to information on the subject? I found the article useful. I am puzzled by the current witch-hunting of articles that whatever their deficiencies are still helpful sources of information. Most Wikipedia guidelines allow for pragmatic flexibility in their application but this seems to escape the notice of fundamentalist administrators. --Opbeith 14:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - she is notable person and the fact that she attempted to commit suicide is significant. Did her father sexually molest her? Did he abuse the family verbally or physically? There must be underlying cause of her grief - would you agree? Bosniak 04:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't, for any speculations would violate WP:OR. Committing suicide cannot make a person notable, btw Peacent 15:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge any useful information and Redirect to Ratko Mladić. I have read the article and the two references, and as far as I can tell, the only two things about her which worth mentioning are the facts that she was the daughter of Ratko Mladić and that she committed suicide. The whole Times source only touches a visit to her grave, not to say that the BBC source actually has only one or two sentences that mention her grave, obviously a trivial source. I honestly don't see how she meets the notability guideline. Peacent 15:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; her suicide appears to have been a notable event that made a lot of people pay attention. Whether or not she meets BIO is wikilaywering. John Vandenberg 08:42, 3 June 2007 (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.