Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Svidersky (4th 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. John254 00:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Very sad case, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- WP might not be a memorial, but it is a place for articles on notable people, and the worldwide attention her death garnered makes her notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mourning sickness, which already contains all relevant information about the reaction of strangers to her tragic death. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Edison (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep--This article is more than a memorial. Her death had worldwide coverage, "tragic as it was, this story was never destined to attract worldwide attention. Until, that is, Anna's friends posted the news of her murder on MySpace"..."The story looks unlikely to stop here. Condolences from all over the world continue to flood in, with 29 video tributes currently hosted on You Tube alone." (The Guardian). The fact that the article has survived 3 AfDs, highlights her  "notability". --Jmundo (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It survived AFD in one form or another 3 times already. Nothing changed. (I would have voted to merge/redirect, if doing so wouldn't put undue weight into the target article. She might be notable, but not more notable than Diana.) - Mgm|(talk) 19:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, and people remembered for one event only are better integrated in to articles about that event. Thus, due to failed attempts to merge this with Mourning sickness like it should be, we should delete this article. Steven Walling (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You say it "should be" merged with Mourning Sickness. Deletion is not the proper solution then.  Ty  10:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Read my whole comment. A merge has been suggeted and attempted multiple times to no avail. If the article doesn't meet notability criteria for people, and there is opposition to merging it with a notable topic to which it is related, then it should be deleted. Steven Walling (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I read your whole comment. You are saying that merge is the correct course of action. If the consensus of the AfD agrees with that, then it will be merged. It does meet WP:N.  Ty  00:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does not meet the WP:BIO guidelines in the least. Every murder, even if it's a young girl, isn't notable. What is notable about the case is its use in media studies and other academics as an example of mourning sickness. Svidersky herself is famous only for the circumstances of her death, and thus clearly violates both our consensus-created guidelines for biographies of people famous for one thing, and the fact that we are not a memorial. Steven Walling (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wikipedia is not a memorial: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." The article has been written by editors in good standing per normal policy requirements, meeting WP:N, with intense scrutinty, and any attempts by users to place tributes have been reverted. The fact that this article is viewed around 4,500 times per month is more indication of widespread and lasting notability beyond any immediate circle. To not have this article would be a disservice to readers.  Ty  10:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ty above, and per numerous prior discussions in the previous AfDs, this article does not violate Wikipedia is not a memorial. It is well sourced, not written by involved parties, and notability is clearly established on local, national and international levels. Crum375 (talk) 17:24, 24 December 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.