Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Anna Nicole Smith


 * 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 Merge. I am going to redirect this to Anna Nicole Smith for now and interested parties can merge the content from here to the main article as they see fit.--Isotope23 13:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Death of Anna Nicole Smith

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Why do we need an article for a persons death?the original page is good enough,not good enough for a separate articleRodrigue 18:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is a top news story in its own right (though I'm getting sick of it already), definitely deserving of a separate article. Realkyhick 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Anna Nicole Smith. The event has not enough solid facts to be separate, and would be just as good merged into the article about the person. --Kevin (TALK)(MUSIC) 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Anna Nicole Smith. Really not good enough to stand on its own, and I hardly feel Anna Nicole Smith deserves an article just on her death anyway. Buyable 22:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for a month and then Merge with Anna Nicole Smith. It is attracting as much editing action as the main ANS article, and by having it separate from the main ANS article, it is keeping both relatively stable. If the Death article is merged in now, it will unbalance the main article by the sheer length of the Death discussion. In a month (or so), things will have calmed down and more may well be known (the autopsy and the CSI story are yet to come). At that time, a shorter Death section could well be added to the main ANS article. Bellagio99 02:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge contents back into main article, then delete redirect. A redirect would direct editors looking for the 'death' article back to Smith's biography, where they could make the same edits.  And there's nothing so incredibly society-altering about Smith's death that would necessitate the event requiring its own editing.  Death of Richard Jeni, for example, would feel just as odd. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 03:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: "merge and delete" isn't a valid vote; WP:GFDL requires that revision history be maintained. I think you want merge and redirect. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 11:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's a fairly notable article about the death of a celebrity. I disagree with the idea of merging it since there is way too much infomation for the Anna Nicole Smith article. dposse 20:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Any claims that ANS is not important for an encyclopedia are POV. Her death is important, and I think it makes sense to have the facts available on wikipedia, especially in light of pernicious and pervasive rumours. People will turn to Wikipedia for the facts, so it is inappropriate for it to be removed merely because some editors deem ANS "unencyclopedic" and distasteful.--Agnaramasi 20:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agnaramasi, I don't think anyone is arguing to delete the article, but whether or not to merge the death article into the main Anna Nicole Smith article. (See my comments above). Hmn, Donald Freed has written a play called, The Death of Sokrates. Is this a precedent? Bellagio99 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This is easily a notable enough topic to warrant a separate article. Everyking 05:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Do you really think people are going to remember this a month later?it is not worth a seperate article just because it is a current top news story192.30.202.19 16:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We have a "notability is permanent" principle, so it doesn't matter if people stop caring a week from now. Everyking 05:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh... yes. It's been over a month, and it's still heavily covered in the press.   ◄    Zahakiel    ►   18:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge This is real and heavily referenced. I don't see any reason it was proposed for deletion, but it shouldn't have it's own article. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For one thing, Anna's main article is 42 kilobytes long. Everyking 07:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge:The reason why I proposed it for deletion is because it shouldn't be its own article,but I was only implying that it should be merged with the other article,not for the information itself to be deletedRodrigue 17:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * MergeIts true,wikipedia cannot have articles that are simply about the death of a person,especially just because that person is a famous celebrity192.30.202.18 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Oh, really? Then explain the Execution of Saddam Hussein article. dposse 21:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you be making that same snarky comment if it wasn't an anon? &mdash; Michael Linnear   03:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem, are you putting Saddam Hussein, after all the leader of a nation and all that, on the same shelf as a model and actress? --Ouro (blah blah) 08:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete but more realistically merge. Wikipedia shouldn't become a gossip encyclopedia.--Jersey Devil 21:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a good way to distinguish what you call "gossip" from notable information about a different subject, except that it involves a celebrity? Everyking 03:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete:In responce to the above comment,Saddam Hussein does have an article on his death and execution,but there is also an article on the death and funeral of the recently deceased Gerald Ford.One of those people is a former dictator who has been infamous for his crimes against humanity for so many years, and the other is a well known former United States president.I think Its fair that such excetionally well known people whos death will live throught history is more important than someone who is just a well known model and actress whos death will be talked about and remembered until a bigger hollywood story comes along192.30.202.19 13:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * DeleteIt is unfair to have articles pertaining to a persons death,but this one specifically more than the others which are atleast of major worldwide sgnificants192.30.202.28 21:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge. While she was a celebrity, Anna Nicole's death did not contribute anything to American law, to Bahamian law, to drug testing, or anything that isn't really self-contained. If her death had touched off a larger scale change in the status quo, then I would be for keeping it. I feel a decent amount of what's on this article currently can be condensed successfully; let's merge it back into the ANS article until such a time arises when a) the ANS article becomes too large, b) the information regarding her death becomes more relevant to a larger story. Freakazette 23:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Really does not need to be it's own article. Just the final chapter of her life. &mdash; Michael Linnear   03:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete This is not Wiki News. The fact that it is a current event is irrelevant. The creation of a free standing article was premature. Her cause of death has not even been determined, yet. Editors need to be disciplined enough to confine the truly encyclopedic content into the subject's biography. The free-standing article has become a platform for tabloid, non-encyclopedic material. If Anna Nicole was, in fact, murdered and a trial ensues, then a free standing article, akin to the O.J. Simpson murder case would be warranted - not at this juncture. Cleo123 06:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That the cause of death hasn't been determined is irrelevant. That there has been no murder trial is irrelevant. Notability is assigned to whatever people choose to pay attention to. If she was murdered, and there was a trial, but it received little attention and we therefore had few sources to work from, then it would probably be inappropriate to create a separate article. If all she had done was stub her toe, but people chose to pay an enormous amount of attention to that for some reason, then it would be appropriate to create a separate article for that. Everyking 16:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and MergeHer death was of little significants to worldwide society.
 * Secondly,I see we arre pretty much in agreement now as I see that last several comments where for merging,So now can someone please take care of deleting the article64.229.203.92 15:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: discussion was not transcluded onto today's AfD log. Fixed page format a bit, adding to log in a moment. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. Clearly a notable story about a minor celebrity, but should be in the article about that celebrity, not a stand-alone article. SkipSmith 07:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. My concern about merging and redirecting right now is that the Anna Nicole Smith article is already almost 45KB, and I don't think you could add what's on this page to the original ANS article without adding at least another 10KB. Wait until the speculation is over and some of the "possibilities" can be removed, then merge. -- Charlene 08:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Look,stop stop being so worried over nothing.So the page will be pretty big,so what?Plenty of pages onm wikipedia I've seen be atleast 90 kilobytes even with several subsections,and those where for major articles.Since there isn't anything very drastic about her death it wint be too much of a hassle merging it with the other.192.30.202.20 14:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment .192.30.202.20 has voted twice in this AFD. dposse 14:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not a vote. It is a discussion. Pablothegreat85 18:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into main article. So it's getting too big?  Trim the hell out of it then. If there is any more proof needed of the chronic worship of the Now on Wikipedia, the fact that this fork about a minor celebrity is larger than the Death of Marilyn Monroe, the Death of Martin Luther King and the Death of Elvis Presley.  (Gosh!  Those latter two articles don't actually exist, because they weren't deemed important enough to fork off.) Ravenswing 15:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's an imbalance, the solution is to write more on other subjects, not delete notable information about this subject. Our policy is to split out subarticles to enable content expansion, not to delete information so it can all be packed into a single page. Everyking 16:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The key phrase there is "notable information." As Arkyan correctly cites below, massive quotation lists and 911 transcripts do not remotely qualify.  No doubt there's a 911 transcript from whomever found Elvis dead (for instance), but we don't need to clutter the article with it.  Exactly what about Smith's death is notable?  The allegations of suicide or foul play are inappropriate pending official reports, so all that is notable is that she (a) died young, (b) had a post-mortem custody controversy and (c) had a post-mortem burial controversy.  All of that could have been handled in two or three paragraphs.  Wikipedia is not wastepaper.  Ravenswing 17:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge back into parent article. I fundamentally agree with Ravenswing in saying that article size alone does not warrant this article, and it's likely a sign that some trimming needs to be done.  As an encyclopedia there is no reason to editorialize every minute detail connected to her death.  In any case keeping it would justify creating a "Death of" article for every famous person, and that's unecessary duplication. Arkyan 16:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For every famous person where the death has been covered extensively by the press and where the main article has already gone past the size recommendation, yes. Everyking 16:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That the subject of her death has been covered extensively and is extremely notable is beyond doubt. I'm certainly not questioning whether the article passes inclusion criteria, just the necessity of a standalone article.  Granted this is my own opinion, but I think it could do without the massive quotations, transcripts of 911 calls and other extreme detail that to me feels less like informative content and more like fluff.  The section about the paternity dispute of the child is something that was only triggered by her death and really isn't a topic that should be covered under it.  My point is that, according to my views of what makes for a good article, enough content can be removed from the article without actually hurting the integrity of the information that it could be safely merged back in to the parent article.  Feel free to disagree, and whichever way consensus goes I'm happy to abide by. Arkyan 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge anything not duplicated into the main Anna Nicole Smith article. That's where people looking for information on this situation would look first, anyway. 23skidoo 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per proposed WP:NOTNEWS. Edison 19:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rejected proposals aren't really good for bolstering an argument.--UsaSatsui 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - the death of Anna Nicole Smith is itself notable, verifiable, and newsworthy. The death of a celebrity might be as notable as the celebrity him/herself. - Richard Cavell 23:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least for now. I don't see the issue. There's a lot of info, probably more to come, it's not all gonna fit on the main page, and the event itself is significant enough to warrant inclusion. It also passes WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Yes, I'm aware that in the larger scheme of things, it's not that important, but if we only included what was "important", Wikipedia would be a lot smaller. I do think that in a couple months, when this all dies down, this should be looked at again...there's no harm in keeping it now and then giving it another AFD at a later date.--UsaSatsui 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

 A New Type of Wikipedia Article?

Folks, I wonder if we have invented a new type of Wikipedia article with the Death of ANS. On the one hand, the story is more than the daily (or even weekly) WikiNews. On the other hand, as things settle down, the article will eventually be condensed and merged into the main ANS. This suggests that our new invention is a time-delimited article, probably of two months, at which point a call for Merger would almost automatically kick in. With this new type of article, there would be no need for every Wikipedia article to be seen as "permanent" -- whatever that means in the world of Wikis and the Internet. Bellagio99 02:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But then, is there really a reason to not just merge in the first place? --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not: notability is permanent. That's a very important principle. Everyking 03:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think we've invented anything new.  We have a (rather common) case of editors who seem to feel there's a prize for being the First To Make The Edit conflated both by a lack of judgment as to whether information is timeless or trivial and by the certitude that whatever drum E! Tonight is thumping on any given week Must Be Of Vital Importance.  I'm sure many of you have seen that in the fields you follow, recent or immediate news gets as much space in articles as all the previous history of the subject combined.  Unfortunately, the only way this syndrome will be corrected is with time.  The Wikipedians of five years from now will trim these bloated, superficial articles down.  I doubt we'll be allowed to do so.  Ravenswing 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - it is quite reasonable to have a news story as a separate article while the story remains current. Whenever there is a newsworthy event we get lots of new readers who might stay and start editing. As a separate article it makes it easier to find the information and it stops the main article from being overloaded. When it stops being current then a keep/merge view can be taken. TerriersFan 04:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Anna Nicole Smith. By judicious editing of both this article and the main article, that should be possible. I just submitted an edit which cut the 911 call transcript down to 5 words, and one could even justify cutting it down to zero words. --Metropolitan90 04:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No doubt it's possible, but it's not desirable. People who want to read about this stuff will be disappointed by Wikipedia's deliberately restricted coverage. "Oh, yeah, we used to have more information about that, but then we decided our readers don't really need to know it." I don't think that is remotely the spirit of Wikipedia. Having less information on this does not help anyone at all. Being able to cut things down is not a virtue. Being able to write good intros and summaries is a virtue, but not when it means the exclusion of detail. Everyking 06:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of writing an encyclopedia is summarizing and being selective as to what information is included. Even if we were dealing with an undeniably notable subject -- say, George Washington -- we wouldn't expect that every aspect of the subject's life that might be mentioned in a biography would show up in the subject's Wikipedia article. And when people include dialogue transcriptions such as:
 * [911 Responder]: Uh, huh.
 * [Seminole Police Department Official]: If you guys could please...
 * [911 Responder]: Oh, okay.
 * we can be selective, and we don't need to leave the entire text in the article. --Metropolitan90 07:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as we are dealing with notable, verifiable information, we should not be selective or unnecessarily summarize. In fact we should guard against that; it's Britannica thinking. We can write about as much as we have sources for; we can continue to split out topics until there is nothing left to say. Everyking 08:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - notability is generally permanent... and her death was very notable. It was on TV for... ever, not that that makes notability, but it has been the subject of a lot of court cases, exposure, etc. We would lose information if we merged, and that is NOT good for Wikipedia considering that we should "whenever possible avoid deleting information" and WP:NOT. Kopf1988 04:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and heavily edit. This is ridiculous - how is the death of Anna Nicole Smith notable outside of the context of Anna Nicole Smith? It may be long, but that's because Wikipedia is often confused with Wikinews. Editing back to an encyclopaedia article that carefully documents the proper facts will likely result in a length which can be supported by the main article. GassyGuy 05:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - John Lennon, a highly more influential and well known person, who was assassinated, no less, does not have a separate page for his death. Even her COD is still unknown. The Death of Anna Nicole Smith could be heavily shortened and easily merged with the main Smith page. -- MacAddct1984 13:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * MergeIt is true that there alot of other people,for example Elvis,James Brown and Martin Luther King who are far more notable who deserve similar articles about their death, but their not there.So if this article stays, logically we would have to look over many other famous people and give them an article of their death as well. Rodrigue 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's do that. Wikipedia is not finished. Content about current events tends to be more advanced than historical content, which simply means we need to work to get the historical content to catch up. Everyking 17:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect All content in this article would be better served in the main article. There's no need to "lose information" in a merge as claimed above. But there always good reason to judiciously trim extraneous & trivial information from any article. -- Scientizzle 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge Per Buyable. Pablothegreat85 18:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with Anna Nicole Smith. Nukleoptra 12:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep censorship is unethical 9dbfg 18 March 2007


 * 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.