Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Strange


 * 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, bearing in mind that a consensus to merge and redirect is free to emerge at any time on the article's talk page, once further developments make clear whether that is appropriate. In this discussion, a majority of commenters clearly hold that newsworthiness merits coverage, and that deletion is inappropriate. Firm consensus for (or against) a specific merge and redirection does not yet exist, but likely will, once the any criminal probe concludes. Xoloz 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Strange

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

The only notability claim is that she died of water intoxication in a contest. While newsworthy, we are not the Guinness records or Ripley's Believe It or Not!. She has been featured in multiple sources for a single event in her life. -- ReyBrujo 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC) *Merge with a Wii mishaps article or something. The page doesn't exist but i think it should be created. This article, however, is not notable to have it's own. Scepia 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesn't take a whiz to figure this out. ^_^ JuJube 06:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Somehow a pun in this situation, while natural, seems a bit in bad taste. She leaves behind three children and, apparently, died in agony. That being said I would go for a merge to KDND as her notability I think is very short-term and current events based.--T. Anthony 06:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On further consideration the case seems to have become more notable than I expected so weak keep. My initial reaction was that this was a one-day story of oddball death, but I've changed mt mind. Will she be notable ten years from now? I'm not sure, but Anna Wood and Leah Betts are apparently notable after 12 years so it might be possible.--T. Anthony 23:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will joke about anything and everything, but that's neither here nor there at the moment. In policy terms, she fails WP:BIO because she didn't do anything notable other than die to try to get her kids a video game system. JuJube 07:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ironically, whilst researching Joke I found a lot of material written by folklorists and others on the jokes that people tell after deaths and disasters, including one lengthy piece by Christie Davies that describes at length the error of commentators who complain when someone makes a joke about such subjects. We really should have that whole subject covered in depth, but do not as yet. Uncle G 11:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Much of the time I don't mind jokes about a death or tragedy, "gallows humor" type stuff either, as they're a way to deal with it, etc. For example I didn't have a problem with people lampooning Heaven's Gate. For some reason though this was a case where I didn't like it. I'm guessing this woman didn't know about water intoxication and wasn't drinking huge amounts of water purely for her own amusement. This seems like a case that could get lawyers involved too. "Funny deaths" don't work like that to me.--T. Anthony 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Somehow, I don't think any court of law would find this to be a "Wii mishap" :-) --N Shar 06:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Notability (people) and User:Parasite's comments below. Scepia 02:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge - being a nine days wonder on national media is not noteable. 24.16.164.253 18:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, sufficient information is already in the water intoxication and KDND articles. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Water intoxication - there are already some hyperhydration cases listed there.  SkierRMH, 07:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's no need to merge to KDND because all the information is already there. --Hyperbole 07:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merging (as has already been done) is probably fine, since there probably isn't anything else we can say about her that would warrant an individual article. However, if someone can expand the content it might be worth having the individual article. Everyking 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (changed previous comment to:) Keep: this is clearly a breaking news story, and, given recent news stories, it's looking likely this article will need to be kept. -- The Anome 00:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to KDND. My first inclination is to keep b/c I actually think she meets criterion one, but that obviously isn't getting consensus, so I'd say redirect. I can't find any clear evidence of a merger, but people here are saying that it's already been done, so simply deleting this article is a bad idea because our license encourages us to preserve attribution history. Redirecting/finishing the merger is the logical option.--Kchase T 10:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to either KDND, or water intoxication. Personally I suggest KDND because it has more information about the incident there. It might be worth mentioning in the Wii article at some point, or if someone makes a Wii Controversies article it should be mentioned their but personally I am wear of such an article myself. --GracieLizzie 10:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above.EvaGears 11:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. If we delete, given her present notoriety, well meaning editors will probably keep reinserting the article.--Wehwalt 12:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not if it gets salted.--Isotope23 18:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Water intoxication and merge all info to that article. Juppiter 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to KDND. Terence Ong 13:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delete b/c Although water intoxication is notable, I do not think (unfortunately) that Jennifer Strange is notable enough to keep/merge/redirect. That is, with a merge/redirect, you're still keeping the article with a redirect link. I do agree with making a note of this event in the water intoxication article. Roodog2k 13:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to KDND, which explains what happened in full. Not sure this belongs in an article about the Wii or a proposed Wii Controversies article, since nothing here seems to relate to the machine itself. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to KDND, which adequately explains this tragedy.-- danntm T C 16:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think it's very relevant to both KDND and water intoxication. However, this information has already been added to both of those articles. This article, in and of itself, doesn't actually add anything. Bladestorm 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Deletion would be fine with me as the subject does not meet WP:BIO, but since this is already at KDND, that is the logical place for a redirect if that is the consensus.--Isotope23 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to KDND, as per above. --Measure 18:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I know it has already been said that she was only notable for a single incident. Google news comes up with over 300 hits on Jennifer Strange + wii.  This was a notable event, and could be a useful resource to somebody writing a paper on the wii, or water intoxication or any other number of related topics.  By merging and redirecting, we just make the information mroe difficult to find. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why would a person writing a paper on the wii want information on a radio stunt gone wrong? The incident had nothing directly to do with the console, any more than Alayiah Turman's death really had anything to do with the Xbox 360. And why wouldn't a person writing a paper on water intoxication read the article on, say, Water_intoxication? Don't you think that a person writing a paper on water intoxication would be more likely to look that up than to randomly choose Jennifer Strange's name? Hmm? Bladestorm 02:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Her death was somewhat notable, but she is not. There will never be enough source information about her to make a decent article. --Measure 17:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not opposed to mentions of her in the other articles. I think there should be a mention to this incident on the articles water intoxiation and the Wii, however i think it should be a brief mention that she died and with all the press coverage, have the article with more details on her and her death.  I think this is a fairly tragic event and is getting a fairly large amount of press coverage (e.g. not a slow news day story that was covered by some local newspaper only).  If i were doing reserach on water intoxiaction and saw a blue link to Jennifer Strange as an example, i would most certianly follow it and read up on it, and what happened.  To me, this could be useful. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dhartung, and this is not a memorial. Do Not Redirect, as it isn't an obvious search term for Wii or water intoxication, and will be less so with the passage of time. Agent 86 19:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The purposes of redirection are not only to help people find more information about the topic of Jennifer Strange (which is present in the radio station's article), but also to preserve the history of attribution (who provided what content, even if it was eventually merged into other articles).--Kchase T 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The term will unlikely be a search term; if it somehow is used, the term will still likely result in the target articles being provided as a search result. We also don't need a contribution history for every deleted article. The contribution history for what's already been added on the other target pages about this woman are all that's really necessary or required. Agent 86 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Water intoxication. Maybe the next bunch of radio station geniuses thinking up a contest will be reminded to choose a different task. Edison 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Water intoxication per reasons stated above. Dblevins2 22:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I would have gone for Merge but anything anyone would want to know about this case is already found at the KDND and Water Intoxication. Unless a prolonged investigation or trial results from her death, I don't forsee any new information coming up that might warrant keeping this article. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: A problem with the redirect suggestions above is the fact that a Google search turns up several other Jennifer Stranges who may be more notable than this one. In fact, most of the hits on the first page seem to be for this artist from Indianapolis, who also seems to be the intended target of some of the current links to the nominated page.  Thus, if the decision is anything other than outright deletion, a disambiguation page may be necessary.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe that the Jennifer Strange meets the Notability_(people) criteria, specifically the central tenet of The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. and this is reinforced by the fact that this person has achieved renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated . . If consensus is not to keep, than a disambiguation pointing to a redirect to Water intoxication to keep the edit history. -Parasite 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment also, if the news report that a nurse warned the DJ about the dangers turns out to be correct, then this is likely to involve litigation or criminal charges and become even more notorious. Lets leave the article in place until we find out and see what transpires. -Parasite 00:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Non-Trivial means to me books and properly researched articles (such as are written by writers of high stature, William Langewiesche or John McPhee come to mind as examples), not newspaper articles. Further more - virtually all of the accounts/articles on various news outlets are reprints of the same single source, a wire service report, there is in fact much less there than the raw number of Google hits would seem to indicate. 24.16.164.253 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

*Delete per Nlu. If we keep this article, it's only ever going to be a stub - better to merge. No requirement to protect page - editors can create a redirect if appropriate... Addhoc 12:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - People have been featured here for less.  Such as Anna Ayala or Deborah Gail Stone.  Both were part of considerably newsworthy events.  If this article is deleted, then those two articles and others like them should similarly be deleted for failing notability.Rebochan 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge / Del / Redirect to Water intoxication. Most of the news and talk around this is centered on the water intoxication, not the radio station itself, and I doubt most people searching for this person care about the station in question. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep And expand. F.F.McGurk 02:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the event was bizarre and tragic but in a few years it won't even be a footnote. Strange's story is something one stumbles upon while browsing fark.com, not something one writes an encyclopedia article about. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable.  No need to merge to KDND or Water intoxication as all information pertinent to those articles are already in those articles.  --Nlu (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - But reconsider for deletion in a few months. It'll be easier to judge whether her fame is fifteen minutes or long-term at a later time. Right now the story is still developing so we can't really judge whether she will be significant or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rinkuhero (talk • contribs) 07:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep - recent news reports indicate that show has been cancelled - probably sufficient for a reasonable article. Addhoc 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the moment, per Rinkuhero and comment by Parasite's. Also, per Ilmari Karonen, it looks like we need a disambiguation page over a redirect. Sanguinity 16:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Delete - This should be covered in the KDND article. - hahnch e  n 18:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. She has been in the news a lot as of late; front page of my newspaper two days in a row. --Indolences 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The radio show has now been cancelled, and the radio show hosts have been fired due to the death of Jennifer Strange. And as User:Parasite pointed out, Jennifer Strange definitely meets the WP:Notability criteria because she is a person who has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.  Dionyseus 19:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This woman's death is obviously notable and this issue has continuing ramifications as the DJs involved with the contest may face criminal charges for their actions and the radio station (not to mention its parent company) will probably find themselves the subject of civil action. In addition, there is public-service value in keeping this article as it draws more attention to the dangers of water intoxication.  At the VERY least, her information could be merged into the article on water intoxication and her name left in as a redirect to that article.  Those who are saying that the article should be deleted without a redirect simply haven't thought things through. --Lee Vonce 19:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notable death caused while on the public airwaves. If not keep, Merge JPotter 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dionyseus. --Pixelface 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would vote Keep if we find more info about her before the "Hold Your Wee for Wii" event--User:NFAN3&#124;NFAN3 22:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep especially if there are civil and criminal charges (which I believe will happen since I heard the aircheck of the contest). --SeanO 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or news source, and a page should not exist because of future driminal charges or notability. As of right now she is not notable. She fails the 10 year or 100 year notability test. If she becomes notable later then a page can be created for her. - Ocatecir 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. No use deleting if it is going to need to be recreated.  Lets sit on it a little bit.  BTW, though, I believe there have been a number of times that radio stunts have gone bad.  Does anyone think that may deserve an article?Bytemaster 03:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the radio sations, not this preson--User:NFAN3&#124;NFAN3 03:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Separate points. Point 1 was keep until the news story dies down and we have a better idea of the longevity, because otherwise, if we delete and it is notable, the article has to be recreated and the history is lost.  Point 2 was that maybe, as an alternative, if someone aggregates the references, a whole article could be devoted to radio contests and / or radio stunts that have gone horribly wrong.  Bytemaster 03:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good idea. Have a list by years, maybe have War of the Worlds listed too--User:NFAN3&#124;NFAN3 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Parasite. TacoDeposit 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The SF Chronicle is reporting that the Sacramento Sheriff's Office is now investigating the case and the behavior of the jocks because it appeared they knew about the dangers of the stunt, were even informed of by an on-air caller about them, and they still laughed it off. If the jocks do become indicted, then that is a huge precedent that needs to be documented, and the article should be kept until its determined if charges are filed. If it turns out no charges would be filed, then I would support a merge instead. hateless 06:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry that is an invalid argument to keep the article, refuted quite specifically in WP:CRYSTAL -- "Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball" and we don't keep articles based on what we think may happen. Tendancer 17:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Does every darwin award recipient get a page to him/herself (BTW, I know she is not a darwin award recipeient, but its brings up a point)? Her description at water intoxication is enough. And she isn't notable at all. Most people know who know about her death only know about her death; I doubt they even know her name. Very few of the news articles you guys quote/cite even mention her name. This is a small event and it will die down after some time. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 09:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In Notability (people) it says the person must be notable - ie referred to in several independent sources. It does not say that the person can not be notable for their death! The point is that she meets the Notability guidelines (she is reference in hundreds of international news sources), it does not matter WHY she is notable. -139.130.136.14 23:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: When the "only notabilty" is forced (since the subject died, they obviously will never get another chance at notability) I think it should be kept. Examples of "notable for death" abound (the victims of Jack the Ripper, etc.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.33.20.11 (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Merge into KDND where a sizable section exists on this incident already. --Daysleeper47 13:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ocatecir. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 15:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The media coverage of this woman, her family and the entire incident is only increasing. Raitchison 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Fails WP:N.  For the keepers citing WP:N, note it says "[notability] is _not_ newsworthiness".  Furthermore, the articles are about a human interest/curiosity event due water intoxication competing for a Wii, not about Jennifer Strange per se.  We cannot let wikipedia expand into a repository for odd death victims, tangential mention in Water Intoxication is sufficient. Tendancer 17:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nor does WP:BIO preclude newsworthiness. It says multiple reliable independent sources with no preference of the source. Just because the source comes from a recent news article does not mean that criteria was not passed. hateless 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's a strawman argument as it's not being argued WP:BIO precludes newsworthiness, and also a false inference that Jennifer Strange by her own merit is noteworthy: she is getting attention because she was in the news due to a bizarre death that attracts human interest, not because herself was noteworthy nor newsworthy. Say 20 people died from the radio stunt, does anyone truly believe then all 20 victims would deserve their own wikipedia page?  The answer is obviously a resounding NO.  The fact just one person died does not change it: bizarre deaths in recent news <> worthiness of encyclopedic inclusion. Tendancer 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: If 20 people died from a similar incident and they get just as much attention from the media that Jennifer Strange is getting, we could make an article on them. Dionyseus 21:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would you be able to point to the thousands of individual wiki pages there must exist on each and every September 11 victim then? (the only thing there ever was a list, and that was voted--successfully--to be deleted off Wikipedia).  No intellectually honest person would claim 09/11/01 is any less newsworthy and noteworthy than a radio stunt gone wrong, yet one doesn't see the individual victims have pages.  I rest my case. :) Tendancer 00:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You appear to argue that news reports should not count as an independent reliable source. If you are trying to say newsworthiness is irrelevant, then you should say so. As for whether human interest news reports are of a lesser quality than other types of news reports for setting notability, I would argue that is a distinction not present in WP:BIO altogether. hateless 00:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Another strawman argument as well as red herring to detract from an obvious point: where are the wiki pages on the September 11 victims then? Some have attempted to cite other death victimns in this debate, yet none have succeeded to cite one that was notable only for their deaths.  e.g. one "keeper" cited Matthew Carrington (whose death lead to Matt's Law) and another cited the incongruant example the Columbine Killers (when a better parallel would've been the victims, only two of whom have wiki pages as books have been published with them as the subject).  The keepers thusfar have not supported their case via passages from WP policies and guidelines, I suspect perhaps because there aren't any that would support keeping it. Tendancer 20:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cry strawman and red herring all you want, or whatever other high school debate foul, but it's rather clear Jennifer Strange is more notable than a common individual 9/11 victim, and WP:BIO does not dintinguish human interest news from other "more legitimate" news. hateless 23:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, I'm spending precious time conversing with someone who thinks dying from water intoxication is notable, yet if one dies from a terrorist act with thousands of others then they should be dismissed as a "common individual 9/11 victim" because that doesn't qualify hateless' arbitrary definition of notability. Tendancer 00:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of mainstream interest. - Lapinmies 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It makes more sense to keep this article with links to it from KDND, water intoxication, and Wii than to have all the information spread out one all three pages. I would oppose a merge with KDND in favor of a merge to water intoxication if it comes to deleting this article.  The cause of death is more important than a radio station.  In 100 years, water intoxication will still be an issue, but the radio station will probably be defunct.--1pezguy 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The reason I wikilinked her name on water intoxication page on the first place (after the current article had already been created by someone else) is that it seemed like there was a convention of doing this on the water intoxication page. Other people listed there (a marathon runner, a teenage school girl, a fraternity member) seem no more noteworthy than Jennifer Strange.  Have they been nominated for deletion?  I haven't seen a discussion of precedent, nor have I looked into it, because I'm being lazy.--1pezguy 21:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone could nominate Matthew Carrington (student) for deletion for the same reason. --Pinkkeith 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold for the same reason as the original nomination. 70.136.255.156 00:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. There has been at least one front page news article every day about this subject.  It is notability due to the controversy of the radio station's negligence and ultimate criminal and civil liability, and will generate significant press coverage in the future.  Clearly meets WP:BIO far more than many biographical articles.  The incident is relevant in the KDND article and Water intoxication article, but only as an aside, not to the extent that is currently devoted to the subject.  The KDND article, for example, is now very unbalanced with all the information on this incident that has been "merged" into it unnecessarily: there are four paragraphs about the station itself and a dozen about this incident.  Somebody a month from now will rightly trim the article down to refocus on the station itself and the content will be lost.  70.136.255.156 00:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep. Leah Betts is notable; so is Ms. Strange - although I'd like to see more information included about the DJs. (The police investigation of her death would be WikiNews; Strange herself is not.) --moof 02:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't really oppose deletion, but if it's deleted, I don't think this list: List of people who became famous only in death or any of the pages on it should be kept either. --Park70 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep At least for the moment. While we know the circumstances surrounding her death are not unique, the fact that this could result in a criminal manslaughter charge against the KDND DJs would almost certainly have a chilling effect on media outlets throughout the nation. Such a case would be highly debatable in modern communications law. Reckstei 02:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject's entire notability, judging from article, is staked on how she died. There is no information here not found, and more relevant to, KDND and water intoxication. I have seen no attempt to write an independent bio, and I suspect it's because there's nothing there that would otherwise meet our standards. Daniel Case 04:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I was saying. Her mention at the water intoxication article is enough. There is no reason for a seperate article for her.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 07:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But there are many articles in here about people notable only because of their deaths. Should those be deleted too?Rebochan 15:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Brandon Vedas and Christine Chubbuck are also well-known for only one even in their life.... Hbdragon88 08:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. It'll be back-page news in a few days, but beyond that, it fits in much better with the larger topics that are possible...both the radio station's wikipedia page, and the topic of water intoxication. President David Palmer 11:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with water intoxication and/or KDND, failing that, delete. A clear case of WP:RECENT that fails the 100 year test of WP:BIO - would anyone, in a hundred years (or even a year's) time really look up this article?  Railwayman 16:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It appears that the DJs responsible for the contest were aware of (and even joked about) the risks of water intoxication, and that they were warned by at least one viewer before the contest took places.  Exploding Boy 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep  Notable. Also now getting global news coverage as of today. F.F.McGurk 20:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:N and this is going to become a pretty big issue, if my reading of the landscape is correct.  —bbatsell  ¿?  23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep unusual and noteworthy event involving firings, lawsuits, and death. It's probably already been nominated for a darwin award ... or at least merge it with something--TommyOliver 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very noteworthy event that is growing in popularity. Her parents were just on Larry King Live with their attorney and I believe that this is significant. Mace 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If Matthew Carrington gets his own page, I don't see why this person shouldn't, their deaths were very similar, water intoxication through bizarre stunt.
 * Carrington has an anti-hazing law named after (and created because of) him. Just like Megan Kanka is notable because of Megan's Law.  Do you think all child predator victims should get a wiki page because Megan Kanka has one? Tendancer 17:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to KDND There is enough information about her in that article.  TheDude2006 16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge/redirect as consensus calls for, perhaps once the hoopla dies down we'll wonder why this should be a standalone article. But it clearly meets WP:N/WP:BIO so deletion isn't called for. --W.marsh 19:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some seemingly regional news items even make it to Austria, and this is one of them. &lt;KF&gt; 01:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Anchoress 06:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Case is gaining more news coverage every day. DanielEng 11:16, 21 January 2007 (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.