Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Svidersky (3rd 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 (non-admin closure) -- M P er el  01:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:BLP1E. Only received news coverage for her death (she's kinda cute tho). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, and every day criminal cases are not notable just because of news coverage. Thousands, if not millions, of murders happen and are covered in the news every year. The previous deletion discussions found encyclopedic value and some unique notability in that this was a noted case of mourning sickness. However, that article now has a subsection just on Svidersky, and there is no reason for keeping the entire biographical article on that basis anymore. In addition to our policy on not being a memorial, the current article is salacious and even violates the biographies of living persons policy in its treatment of her murderer. For example: it calls him a sex offender, but the source says that Sullivan was convicted of "fourth-degree assault and unlawful imprisonment with sexual intent", and does not say he was registered as a sex offender. The man was acquitted on grounds of insanity, and the tablod-like article that stands now does not respect his right to privacy and decency as outlined in our BLP policy. In light of the sensitive effect this article has on the still living person it largely concerns, and that Wikipedia is not a memorial for the murdered, this must be deleted. Also, as a side note, I will say that Vancouver is my hometown, and this is not a unique and remembered event in the city's history. Van Tucky  01:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into mourning sickness. In historical context her death is notable for its impact on social relations via the media. (see Philip Rayner, A Need for Postmodern Fluidity? Critical Studies in Media Communication, 23:345-349) Rockpock  e  t  01:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A merge is redundant, considering that Mourning sickness has all content relevant to the her death as an instance of mourning sickness. There is nothing more to merge. Van Tucky 01:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:MERGE:You may find that some or all of the information to be merged is already in the destination page... If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary. Therefore merging is not redundant to deleting, which appears to be your suggestion. Rockpock  e  t  02:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like the policy says you're correct in terms of merging procedures, but did you consider the BLP aspect, that things like the false naming of the acquitted, mentally ill defendant as a sex offender? If there's no content that needs merging, I think it would be better to not have that history. Van Tucky 02:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is a BLP issue (and I'm not entirely sure there is, since there are plenty of sources that quote the police describing her killer as a "registered sex offender" ), that can be dealt with separately. The closing admin should be skilled enough to merge only what is appropriate. What is important during the merge process, is that the article is redirected to assist those who may search by her name, and that anything that is merged meets GFDL requirements. Rockpock  e  t  02:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Mourning sickness . Already merged per Vantucky. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. All the above arguments were debated to death during the second AFD, which ended in a Keep, like the previous one. Only new arguments, that haven't been rehashed in the past should be presented. Crum375 (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be forgetting that our policy dictates that consensus can change, and it doesn't require completely new arguments. A fresh discussion on an old topic is perfectly legitimate, and arguing "it was kept before" is not a reason for keeping it in light of a new discussion. Van Tucky 01:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not forgetting anything &mdash; and consensus can in fact change. But rehashing the same arguments over and over is not productive. At the very least, everyone should carefully review the last AFD, and build on that. Crum375 (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Mourning sickness. Redirects are cheap, and since a subsection on her already exists, this is natural. The page history will remain if her notability should be later established. JJL (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Anna Svidersky" gets 19,000 ghits, while "Mourning Sickness" gets 10,300. My guess is that Mourning Sickness would get very few hits on its own, if the example of Anna Svidersky were removed. If anything, Mourning Sickness should be redirected to this, more notable, article. Crum375 (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A notable, in fact unique case, which gained international coverage. The memorial argument is false: a memorial is where people express their feelings and pay tribute to the deceased. This is neither that, nor salacious: it is a factual record based on reliable sources. The argument that there is factually incorrect information about the assailant is a reason to amend the information, not to delete the article. In fact the information has been amended. However, the very minimum of research on google would have brought up reliable sources that say the information is correct. It is stated specifically in The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, snopes and crimelibrary, amongst others. The argument that it is not remembered in Vancouver is blatant orginal research. The significance is its international effect. It is inaccurate to classify it under "Mourning sickness", as it is equally about the internet, particularly MySpace and Youtube. This article has a stronger case to exist than Mourning sickness.  Ty  02:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article seems notable for a number of reasons, and meets wikipedia criteria for notability. With proper maintenance it could avoid becoming a memorial, and it doesn't seem to be one now.  It should be kept both as a example of mourning sickness and a unique case on its own.  A redirect from mourning sickness would not be appropriate as it encompasses a number of features irrelevant to that article.--15stamps (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Key Internet event. Her death is one event, and her mourning a second event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Well sourced - NYTimes and Guardian mentions make the sources more substantial than those for many articles. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep adequately sourced. I point out the parenthetical phrase in the nomination is an irrelevant and inappropriate comment, considering the nature of the article.) Probably retitle, Murder of... DGG (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  16:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The girl's death received international press coverage and became a well-known Internet event, as Richard says above. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. We've been over these "not a memorial" complaints many times over.  A neutrally written encyclopedia article about a notably memorialized individual is not itself a memorial.  Also, if you spot a legitimate BLP violation about her killer, be a dear and remove or correct it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I believe the premise for nomination is mistaken. Comparisons between Anna Svidersky and Pricess of Wales are exaggerated.  But a google search shows she continues to be mentioned in news article long after her death.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2008 (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.