Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Brancheau


 * 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. and move to Death of Dawn Brancheau. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dawn Brancheau

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There has been a lot of discussion about weather this article should be deleted, redirected or merged. We need a consensus. I think that since she is mainly known for one event that it should redirect.&#42;Treker (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment I would like say that since some editors have done a great job of finding relevant information that shows that Brancheau's death did have some significant effects, even outside of seaworld, that I've reconsidered my position and agree that the article should be moved to Death of Dawn Brancheau.&#42;Treker (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This animal trainer was indeed murdered by one of her animals, who happens to be independently notable, in 2010. But she was a somewhat notable animal trainer before that: the article features a picture of her in 2006, as well as a news interview from 2000. Her death has had a lasting legacy (which a click on the "news" link above confirms in the last week alone) in part by spawning a notable documentary (Blackfish (film)). Dawn Brancheau wasn't just some random tourist who fell into a shark tank and as such WP:1E should not apply; this plainly isn't a case for which that policy was created. -- Kendrick7talk 02:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Tilikum (orca) - Almost all information regarding this individual appeared AFTER the event that made her notable. The fact that she was featured in local news reports could be just as much about her being in the right place at the right time (that is, working when the news cameras showed up). This is clearly a memorial article fork from the article where her notoriety is derived; almost all the cited information in the article came from the Tilikum article, and that which isn't already there can easily be added. The uncited information is intended to memorialize the victim, not provide any information as to their notability outside of the event that put her name in the papers, so to speak. Further, Kendrick7's word choice above seems to suggest an agenda that wouldn't be compatible with a neutral encyclopedia. This article is unnecessary by both WP:1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. -- McDoob  AU93  14:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "memorial" aspects of the page need to be cleaned up. Feel free to remove any uncited information; you don't need the permission of an WP:AFD process to do so. All I did was revert the blanking of the page, and then provide additional sources, where I could, after demands for better sourcing on the talk page. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater; WP:SOFIXIT. -- Kendrick7talk 02:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But if you "clean up" the memorial aspect of it, all you're left with is the single event, which mostly duplicates the incident's coverage at Tilikum (orca). That makes this a POV fork, which also is highly against Wikipedia guidelines. -- McDoob  AU93  14:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This animal trainer is notable because she was killed by Tilikum and for being featured in Blackfish. Because there are two major events, I think the article should be kept. However, the article needs to be more encyclopedic. I helped the article a little bit, but it is a start-class article. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. The second event is a film chronicle that includes the first event, and most likely would have not existed without the first event. Had the second event been standalone, maybe. But the two are inextricably linked. My continued issue is that the information before her death is still uncited and the info of and after her death already is in the two articles you mentioned, Tilikum (orca) and Blackfish. What here is new and establishes notability outside of the one event? -- McDoob  AU93  18:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To quote WP:1E: The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. I'm not sure there exists a much larger media spotlight than a world-renowned documentary.
 * BTW, the very first ref is from 2006, so your contention that "information before her death is still uncited" isn't quite true, as she was killed in 2010. -- Kendrick7talk 01:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The "reference" is a photograph that could have been of ANY trainer, depending on the performance schedule that day and when the photographer visited the park. Nothing in the photograph or its history suggests that the photographer was actively seeking out the trainer because of any perceived fame. In other words, frankly, it does NOTHING to satisfy notability prior to the incident with which she is indelibly connected. As a parallel, consider Flydubai Flight 981. There is a photograph in the infobox of the aircraft that was involved in the crash that was taken about five years prior. Does that make the airframe notable, since a photograph existed of it prior to the incident to which it is indelibly connected? Or, is it simply that someone happened to be at an airport and snapped a picture of a departing aircraft, and its registration just happened to match that of the aircraft in the crash?
 * As to the "individual's role", nothing has been established to suggest that her role was anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, thus making 1E VERY important. Plus, NOTMEMORIAL is still a major problem, since when all the uncited information is removed, all that's left is what's already in two other articles. Again, there is NOTHING here that can't be found in the two articles already mentioned. Anyone actively searching for Brancheau should be directed to Tilikum (orca), since without the incident, nobody would know who she is.
 * -- McDoob AU93  13:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously comparing a dead human being to an airplane? She wasn't "in the wrong place at the wrong time", she was doing her job. Which, again, prior-to-her-death references attest to. -- Kendrick7talk 00:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop attaching a bunch of emotions to this. Try being objective. It doesn't matter if the article is about an airplane or a person. If she isn't notable outside of her death and she should not have her own separate article. Everything in this article that is of value could be in the Tilikum or Blackfish articles. A few interviews prior to her death doesn't prove that she was anything else than a reasonably well known seaworld employee who got the chance to be interviewed because she had an unusual job, and even if she was mildly notable why should we have another article which just repeats the same information? If you can find more information about why she was important to seaworld while alive maybe this article would have a case for existing.&#42;Treker (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not an emotional appeal to say that human beings are just as important as films and zoo animals. Yes, some of these details do already appear in both Blackfish (film) and Tilikum (orca). But per WP:NOTPAPER, I believe I'm only making an appeal to reason. You can't argue WP:1E while insisting her biographical details could be merged into either of 2 different events. -- Kendrick7talk 04:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but it's without a doubt an emotional appeal to bring up the fact that she's human. She wasn't important and thus does not warrant an article. There are not two different events, it's one event and a film which focuses particularly on said event.&#42;Treker (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Tilikum (orca) as mentioned above, seems best known and best connected to that, this could be kept but it still seems questionably better aside from the current content. SwisterTwister   talk  22:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tilikum Her only lasting notability is through her death by Tilikum. Her random appearance on some newscast before her death is not notable in the least. Anything that is notable about her is already covered in the Tilikum article. There is no reason to repeat the same information in a separate article since there is nothing innately notable about her life outside of her death by Tilikum.-- JOJ Hutton  13:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep She continues to be covered in the press. Bruriyah (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see solely for her death. Unless you've found something which shows that she was notable before that.&#42;Treker (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What policy are you trying to apply here ? because I assure you that you are doing it wrong. Yes, she's been lionized since her death, above and including events before her death. So what? WP:1E isn't about condemning rockstars, looked up to by children, to the dustbin of history. It's about if you were just some idiot who stepped in front of a bus one morning, and made more than one daily paper, and so you should get a Wikipedia article. Quit abusing the system. -- Kendrick7talk 04:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No. It's not wrong to point out that someone who is only known for one event does not necessarily deserve their own article. As has already been said everything of value in this article can already be found in the Tilikum or Blackfish article.
 * I have no idea what the nonsense you wrote after that about rockstars have to do about anything. I'm not abusing the system. That's a ridiculous accusation. In my opinion she doesn't deserve an article and any of the things which this article has shown has disproved that at all.
 * All the talk about her being the poster girl of the company has come out after her death, maybe in heighsight it seems that she may have been slightly more important to the company than any of the other trainers but as far a as I can tell that still just proves to make this page a memorial piece.&#42;Treker (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but per WP:ONEEVENT move over redirect to Death of Dawn Brancheau, trimming the biographical information that's unrelated to the event itself. I recognize that the event is covered in Tilikum (orca), but enough has been written about this particular death to justify a separate article.
 * I sympathize with the feelings expressed by User: Kendrick7 and others, but this is not about Brancheau's "importance"; it is about her notability and the notability of her death, as Wikipedia uses the term. TJRC (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: What is here that is NOT in Tilikum (orca) or in Blackfish, and if there is something here, what is keeping it out of those articles? -- McDoob  AU93  22:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, the continued insistence, by at times the same editor, that WP:1E should apply, but, also, that the subject's biography relates to multiple events, via which the subject's whole biography could thus be assembled, belies the underlying ineptitude of this entire discussion. -- Kendrick7talk 03:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No. There are not multiple events. There is one event which has been covered in a documentary. You are just as guilty of repeated comments as your opposition is. There is no ineptitude going on, it's a discussion with people coming with arguments but so far I don't see any evidence heavy enough to support that Brancheau should have an article.&#42;Treker (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. One event does not mean the subject is necessarily unworthy of an article.  There is (plenty) significant coverage, not only from the time of the event but ongoing, continuing coverage many years later.  Meets gng thoroughly. Jacona (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But when there is a single event the article is about said event not the person it happened to and pretty much all of this information already exists in the Tilikum and Blackfish articles.&#42;Treker (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That probably means the Dawn Brancheau article should be expanded. Jacona (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Except there doesn't seem to be much of note. This discussion has been going on for a while even before the deletion tag was added. I urge the people who want the article to remain to actually find reliable sources that prove that she did anything of note before her death and the documentary that followed. Maybe I'm wrong and we just haven't found it.&#42;Treker (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The foregoing keep arguments, including User:JaconaFrere, have it correct. WP:1E reads, unlike some element or factor based benchmarks, as a weighting benchmark. In addition to the death itself, material is available and should be included (I will try to do so in the next few days) that is reasonably distinct from her death itself: subsequently a groundbreaking legal situation arose regarding release or non-disclosure of the SeaWorld surveillance video and the crime scene investigative images.(refs: and ) It has been contended that the post-mortem circumstances and legal arguments gave birth to Florida 406.136, passed in 2011.(2nd ref, and 2 others I am working through). This material is not a good fit for the suggested merge-to articles. Whether or not a rename of this article is appropriate need not be decided at AfD and would logically depend on the article situation after the additional content is integrated. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC) (updated: FeatherPluma (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC))
 * If this information is from reliable sources, and it has been posited by published sources (not interpreted by editors) that there is a direct correlation, then I would agree with an article rename to Death of Dawn Brancheau and all uncited material prior to the event removed. -- McDoob  AU93  20:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I confirm that the direct correlation that you wanted to confirm is explicitly asserted in the cited reliable sources: e.g. "The Florida law was adopted partly in response to the death of Dawn Brancheau in 2010." I have removed or sourced the previously uncited content and added appropriate cited content. I renamed the article. The corrected and expanded article is now 21010 bytes versus 8000 when I started. Given the change in opinion by 2 editors (altho the bolded !votes have not been updated), this AfD discussion has attained consensus in favor of article retention. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC) (edited: FeatherPluma (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC))


 * Keep but rename/refocus to her death per WP:1E as the article subject's importance rests primarily on her death and its aftermath. Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The proper place for a move discussion is on the article talk page. -- Kendrick7talk 18:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur. (On the page renaming aspect, I am conflicted. AfD closure is not dependent on this, and in the interest of brevity in an AfD which has been open since March 19th, and which has otherwise attained consensus, it's reasonable to discuss this there if necessary.) FeatherPluma (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2016 (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.