Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Sarah Guyard-Guillot


 * 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. For the purposes of this AfD, I construed all the merge opinions as keep. I am not sure there's consensus to merge, or whether it'll be overwhelming to the parent article (or UNDUE or whatever). But these are editorial decisions to be make in the ordinary course of things. For now, we have consensus to keep this content. -- Y not? 20:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Death of Sarah Guyard-Guillot

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not the news, nor is it a memorial. This single isolated incident amounts to an industrial accident of a high-profile company, and occupational hazard for the deceased. Any notable durable details should go into that CdS article.  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cirque du Soleil. It's a significant event for Cirque du Soleil, but in a wider perspective it looks like WP:RECENTISM. Brandmeistertalk  09:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cirque du Soleil or create an article about the woman. Quick searching turned up some pre-death coverage.  Andrew327 12:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nom. This is a news story.  A sad and tragic one, but ultimately this is a simple workplace fatality.  As to merging, the only thing that would really belong in the Cirque du Soleil article is a single sentence noting the fatality.  Perhaps a second if the organization makes any changes as a result.  There simply isn't much to merge that would be relevant to the organization. Resolute 15:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep NOTNEWS is intended to prevent the coverage of ordinary news stories. This is not an ordinary news story.  It has been covered around the world in numerous languages.  There is a high probability that it will have a lasting effect on Cirque de Soleil and the circus in general. Merging it to the Cirque article would give undue weight to a single event in the company's 30 year history, so a stand alone article is the best way to cover it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sampling of the vast global coverage: USA France UK Spain Russia Australia China South Africa Brazil Mexico --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Coverage != notability. Per NOTNEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." --M ASEM  (t) 13:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * News != non-notability. See extensive discussion below. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, but that's not the argument I'm using. You're trying to justify "the accident was reported in papers across the world, therefore notable", but that's simply not true, for how we define notability. We're looking at enduring coverage. The question to be asking is: in a year, 5 years, 10 years, etc. how much of an influence will this event have? Because it is literally isolated to the Cirque and family and friends of the performer, very little. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedic topic because this is a news blip - of interest now but probably will be forgotten within the week (Note: this is why NEVENT advises not to create the article until enduring notability has been demonstrated). --M ASEM  (t) 14:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep:I think the writer took a great amount of time and it is important because it is the first performance death in nearly 30 years, therefore note worthy for her own article. Kennvido (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cirque du Soleil, as per Brandmeister: "It's a significant event for Cirque du Soleil, but in a wider perspective it looks like WP:RECENTISM." - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete sufficiently covered in Cirque du Soleil. Hekerui (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 90% of the material is not in the Cirque article. The subject deserves more coverage than simply "An acrobat named Sarah Guyard-Guillot died during a 2013 performance". --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, if Wikinews was anything but worthless, the coverage could go there. But she wasn't notable before her death, and her death really is just a news story.  The coverage you point to exists because of Cirque, not because of her.  That's a harsh reality, but reality nonetheless. Resolute 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is because of Cirque that the coverage has happened. To clarify, by "the subject" I meant the accident+death+aftermath, not the person's career. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. Until this is proven to have a long-standing effect, this should simply be summed up at Kà or CdS' main article. Beerest355 Talk 17:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cirque du Soleil. This is clearly a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. How long someone took writing the article is frankly irrelevant to whether we should keep it. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NEVENTS, "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources". The coverage here is indeed very wide and diverse, and demonstrated wide impact.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * From the same page: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. " Resolute 18:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, but when the burst of coverage is wide and deep (as is the case here) the subject is "very likely to be notable". --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree this is "deep" coverage. An accident happened, the performer died, there's mourning, the show is temporarily held to review safety procedures. No one is analyzing this any deeper than that. Wide, yes, but not deep. --M ASEM (t) 18:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Here is an example of analysis within a wider context. here's another and another.  That's in less than 2 minutes of searching. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's not much secondary coverage in that. They're re-reporting what the accident was and what the record has been in the past. It's certainly secondary in terms of Cirque overall, but not of this particular accident. --M ASEM (t) 14:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hekerui. We need non-newsy sources in order to demonstrate this incident's place in the company's history; a flurry of news coverage doesn't demonstrate the longterm significance of this incident enough to warrant this title being a bluelink.  Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cirque du Soleil; sufficiently notable for referencing in that article. Quis separabit?  19:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternate proposal/question - consensus so far appears to be to retain the content (via merge), but not as a stand alone article. There are concerns about over covering the subject at the Cirque article.  How would people feel about a "Cirque de Soleil accidents" article that covers this event and other accidents and is summarized in the main article?  That way the content is retained, the article is no longer focused on a single "news event", and accidents (which are rare) aren't given undue weight in the main article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How many accidents have happened at Cirque? Two? A separate article would be undue weight and would fail notability, and if you trim out the aspects of covering the "who" and memorial parts in this, you'd have tight-enough information to fit in the main article. --M ASEM  (t) 13:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Several dozen at least (do not confuse "accident" with "fatal accident". There were two in the last week alone. No valid reason has been cited as to why the "who" shouldn't be covered somewhere - it certainly has been covered extensively by RS. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-fatal accidents happen all the time and I suspect most are not reported. I know that there was a non-fatal one that occurred earlier in the week but otherwise apparently unconnected. But still, the topic of "Accidents at the Cirque" is very much non-notable and would be undue. --M ASEM  (t) 18:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Covering every accident in the article would indeed be undue, which is precisely why a standalone article is warranted. If it was a "very much non-notable" topic the accidents would not generate press coverage (albeit much less for non-fatal ones) when they occurred.  Here's an article on past injuries showing some notability for the topic. Here's an article on their safety record from before this incident. Cirque's injury rates has even been the subject of a scientific study, normally considered the "gold standard" on notability.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect & Merge to Cirque du Soleil. Very notable in terms of the company but not long term or in my own view appropriate as a standalone article. Blethering  Scot  21:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cirque du Soleil. Definitely notable, but in the future it will be a footnote. This title also makes it sound like she was a murder victim more than died in a workplace accident.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? I think the title is fine. Most articles about the death of a person begin with "Death of..." and murders "Murder of..." So the title should stay. Unless this is just a case of my sarcasm detector failing to go off.Beerest355 Talk 23:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No sarcasm intended; I always associate "Death of" with a murder article and just hate the nomenclature to begin with (the use of "death of" and "dead at" has always struck me as disrespectful). But that might be just my personal preference.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge the incident is notable only because of the circus's notability. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Kà, which has a small section called "Accidents and Incidents" that should be renamed "Death of Sarah Guyard-Guillot" (since there are no other deaths yet) and can hold the necessary information from this article. The "Background" section of this article is completely irrelevant to this woman, no one really cares about her life before she joined this circus, and the "Death" and "Reaction" section have way too much unneeded detail. I also don't see her death having a major impact on the circus as most media coverage has already died down, which means it will not likely lead to any significant reforms since circus accidents are not too uncommon. The sad truth is that if she didn't die, we would not know who she is since circus performers are generally not notable. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOTNEWS and NOTMEMORIAL. Carrite (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to (likely) Cirque. Complete failure of NOTNEWS, NEVENT, BIO1E, and NOTMEMORIAL. Important to point out in Cirque's article (given how risky the performances are to start and that this is a rare death from them) but far too much weight here on the person who died. It was an accident without wider scope of impact. --M ASEM (t) 13:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The text is all well referenced and well written, so if it were to be merged, it would simply overwhelm the Cirque de Soleil article, which would then require a split to bring it down to size. Per WP:PRESERVE, the information and writing are all good, and there's no where else to put it.  -- Jayron  32  13:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - analysis of what this means for Cirque's (or the circus in general) safety reputation have strated to emerge: Analysis about an event's impact is one of the key hallmarks that an event rises to the level that a standalone article is acceptable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * These articles are pointing back to the notability of Cirque, not this incident (though this incident predicated those articles). I can totally see a section in the Cirque article on the issues of safety and accidents, which include this death. Arguable ,that would make the current Cirque article on the long side, but the way to deal with tht is a more natural split, such as spinning out the list of named Cirque shows to a separate article or the Discography - if you consider any performing group like a musical act, this is the natural and established way to split out such articles as that information is of more detail and follows from WP:SS. Creating an article to highlight the accidents specifically has a serious chance of violating all the reasons this article is called into question, more specifically BIO1E + NOTMEMORIAL.  Instead, a section on the main article to describe the various safety precautions, training, etc. that the performers undergo (from the above articles) and a paragraph or two on reported accidents and fatalities would be completely appropriate. So the merge still makes sense. --M ASEM  (t) 21:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First of, they are analysis of the accident, so of course they post date it. Analysis is precisely what you (and policy) want to prove the notability of an event... Second (and unrelated), every named show already has been split form the main article and only has 1-2 paragraphs of summary.  There is not a single long section in the article, yet you insist that it is perfectly appropriate to have a long section on one aspect (safety record) of a massive global entity.  Indeed, the appropriate way to expand the existing section is precisely "a natural split". Your insistence that it is inappropriate to have an article about the safety history of a company that sells itself on part on its safety record, has had its safety procedures analyzed by multiple sources (even predating this accident), and even has had its injury history analyzed by a scientific study is bizarre.  Any undue biographical/memorial language that could in theory arise in such an article can be removed by ordinary editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A section on the safety aspects and accidents of the Cirque would be, per appropriate weight, about 2-3 paragraphs long. Remember, we're an encyclopedia, we're supposed to summarize. To the level of detail for that, it is worthwhile to note that Cirque's performers undergo extensive safety precautions, but accidents have happened. On the other hand, the biggest factor about Cirque is that they have had a number of impressive shows and that is what they are encyclopedically known for, and where there is a lot of secondary sourcing that review these shows critically. Hence, the coverage of the show aspects of Cirque should be by far the largest chunk, and would be where spinoffs, if needed due to size, would be appropriate. The coverage of this specific accident is following the typical news cycle of any such incident that we avoid covering on WP and why Wikinews was created; this is, for all purposes, routine coverage of a typical broadly-covered news event. --M ASEM (t) 13:57, 4 July 2013 (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.