Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Norgrove


 * 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. Kingpin13 (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Linda Norgrove

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article was going for a speedy deletion. It said that a speedy deletion is only for pages that do not have importance or significance, like articles about ordinary people not known to the world. But her death was reported in many news organisations so it cannot be totally unimportant. However I am not sure if this alone is enough to merit a page on Wikipedia. I leave it to you. X sprainpraxisL (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * — X sprainpraxisL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Unbelievable that we need to discuss this. This is the top entry on Google News and you want to delete it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterHuber (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)  — PeterHuber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Clearly a notable event and a notable woman Aa42john (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no reason why this woman is not going to be looked up in years to come. It is good to see ordinary people represented, for sometime quiet and extraordinary things.Tambonz (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC) — Tambonz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep She is well recorded and certainly a more valid figure than some spurious Hollywood (non) entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.231.63 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)  — 202.37.231.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Her death have reached international headlines,,all the way from india to the US to europe and Aisa etc etc... This Afd was also made by a totally new user(no offense). I think she is notable anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Her death also have the dignity that the Prime minister of Britain commented on her as a person. That doesnt happen often.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also per Kidnapping of David Rohde and the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * also as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not relevant to the main point being made here, namely the international attention and the British prime ministerial interest. Greenshed (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:BLP1E unless there are reliable sources to show this incident has impact on, say, long term foreign policy or becomes a legal reference case. If that is the case, then the article would require being re-named (or merged into an article about the kidnapping) as it would be about the incident, not a biography of this person's life. Not everything the Prime Minister comments on is immediately considered encyclopaedic. Fæ (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Striking my original comment as the article has been renamed and is no longer a biography. I suggest that this AfD is considered closed and possibly re-opened with respect to the new article name of Death of Linda Norgrove. Fæ (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, and you were the one putting this article up for deletion. I totally disagrees with you, the prime minister only comments in death cases of high profile. And to make the article about the incident in particular would be faulty too as every report is on Linda and her life not on the incident in full or the shoters.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. It would be helpful if you could add sources that pre-date her kidnapping to demonstrate notability. Fæ (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I have responded to later comments in the bottom of the page.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I dont think that ending this Afd and starting a new one just because of the article name change is needed. The article has changes its name, but the information in it hasnt. Ofcourse a few changes could be made to make good for the name change on the article though. So I personally Opposes that suggestion.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. WP:NOT a memorial and the very short article at the moment is mostly tributes to the subject rather than biographical information. It seems clear, though, that Linda Norgrove is not notable as an aid worker. She was not known to the public before her kidnapping and was not known to the public during it either, as her name was suppressed from news reports. It is possible that further information may come to make her notable which is my one note of caution. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to refer to the articles current size but that will be increased with time.And its not just about "any aid worker" man aid workers wordwide dies every year... not all get this amount of press. Mostly no one even notice in the papers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - basically a straightforward WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT case. Nsk92 (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This cannot be a WP:BIO1E, it is about a failed rescue attempt in Afghanistan. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's now known to not be a rescue attempt. Norgrove was murdered.


 * I see the article indeed started as Linda Norgrove and was later renamed (nonetheless before the commented entry above). More evidence for early deletion actions (often) being bad. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Well if this article is deleted then you could wonder why articles like Tyler Clementi and similar are still on. Who can honestly say that this incident will have any merits or notability in even 2-3 years.... because it will not. While one similar article about a news event are kept then another one is deleted for the being a current news story online and on tv. We cant have one standard on certain article, while we are not on others. An obvious case of double standard applied alot on Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A smelly case of double standard even.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The correct article name for your example was Suicide of Tyler Clementi, please do not misrepresent the example by using redirects. It was renamed for similar reasons to my comment above, hardly a double standard. Fæ (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comparisons with other cases might give insight sometimes, but are a poor guideline generally. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesnt apply here.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, maybe merge into Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Also a separate article about hostage taking and rescueing in Afghanistan should exist. Also a copy to Wikinews would be right. I can't believe what is going in here for deletion. And the article is just some hours old! Also there would have been the template Notability. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK that might be a good way to establish that notability that some claim is needed to end the discussion. Perhaps moving it all and change some material, like 2010 british aid worker hostage situation and death in Afghanistan, or something similar. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or keeping the article under its current name as I have suggested before. cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My idea would have been to first wait for more material for the case itself, and act after that (with several, even multiple options being possible). Also this hostage taking is a prominent part of current events in Afghanistan (also with other conflicts). Maybe their is enough material already around on Wikipedia to start that; just moving this article there would be rather pointless: The current state of this article under dispute is indeed just one news item right now. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I would perhaps support a move of all content to a new article name if it came to that in the future. BUT as of now I believe that just as you state that to wait for new material is a better solution and to keep the article as it is. It is highly likely that more in-depth information will surface soon about LInda, she is likely a more notable person than we think as her death has becomed sutch a big deal. I suggest a wait and a keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. WP:BLP1E is designed to discourage the creation of biographical articles for individuals who are only know as peripheral participants in a single notable event. It is not intended to dissuade coverage of that notable event simply because it revolves around a single individual. Examples include Kidnapping of David Rohde and the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy.TomPointTwo (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, i couldnt have said it better myself. This is a keeper.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I am concerned about accuracy but no time to research it.  The article states she was shot by a sniper but everything I have read prior indicates her captors detonated a bomb.  The story is sensational enough without getting the facts wrong.  FWIW I tend to think it should be deleted anyway OneHappyHusky (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The death of Linda Norgrove has been widely commented on by many notable people including political leaders, military commanders and journalists.  This article easily passes the standards for notability. Greenshed (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment:I would suggestion a close of this Afd discussion ASAP so that we can focus on doing the article even better. As I believe it has been established that the woman in question is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * you cannot ask an admin to close this discussion the way you want. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop accusing me of things that arent true. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this article should be on the "In the news" section on Wikipedias front page.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep this is under WP:N/CA and clearly notable crime with significant coverage in RS.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The current article is named "Death of Linda Norgrove", N/CA would relate better to a title that reflects the crime of kidnapping and consequently Norgrove's death in a bomb blast (with an associated necessary re-write of the article). Fæ (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally respect your opinion, but I do believe a new article name is not required per the above statments from other users. She is notable beyond the event itself per comments about her as a person from leaders, and the fact that its her the media is focusing on and not the situation in full so to speak, and per reliable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Atleast we have to wait a few weeks before changing names etc etc.. to see if any new information on this lady appears. As I suspect it will. There is no reason to speed things up and do changes unnecessary. N/CA states " media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources."--BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In comparison I would draw your attention to 2010 Badakhshan massacre where the article is named and covers the terrorist action rather than making the lives of those killed the core of the article. Fæ (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The standard when the crime in question has only one victim is to name the article around the victim, obviously. I'd direct your attention toward List of unsolved murders and deaths for a long list of examples. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has been edited in a smart way to be more towards the event,but without deleting any information about Linda as a person. Lets leave it at that. I am satisfied anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * More than one person was kidnapped in the original terrorist action and though only one victim died, more than one person was killed by blast. Fæ (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Since the renaming to Death of Linda Norgrove is this turning into a snowball keep? Greenshed (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Even without a renaming it was heading toward snowball keep. so yes, i would suggest an close to this discussion ASAP.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable as a high-profile criminal act and failed hostage rescue attempt. -- Whoosit (stalk) 23:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * agreed.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable enough that I went to WP to gain more information on her death. Robert Brockway (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE. because it has a Wikipedia article it is therefore notable? circular logic if I ever heard it. LibStar (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to cause any more tensions, but I truly dont see your point.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Libstar, I didn't say that it was notable because it is in WP - I said it is was notable because it is of interest (If I came here to read more on it, others would have too). You just tried a strawman argument on me.  Fail.  It's comments like this that discourage me from being more active on WP. Robert Brockway (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * so it's WP:INTERESTING? Robert please address how this article meets WP:N. you have failed to explain how the article meets WP guidelines except that you came to WP to read more about her (which is not an argument for keep). LibStar (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Libstar, what I can see is that this article doe snot fail a single point under WP:N. A suggestion to you would be not to always use or "hide" behind different Wikipedia standards because they will work against you. Like now. Because as any rule, a rule can be interpreted differently by individuals. I think both me and Robert Brockway have fairly established our points of view and you have to respect that just as well as we have to respect yours.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BabbaQ, I'll let Brockway talk for himself. however, when I see someone get so involved into a AfD it is usually from the article creator. see WP:OWN. WP relies on established guidelines, people turing up to WP:JUSTAVOTE or provide weak arguments do not help the AfD process. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you yourself are always to what I can see really involved in your own Afds going on and on to anyone saying Keep on any of your Afds pointing towards Wikipedia rules and standards this and standard that. So dont point your finger at me. You perhaps need to follow your own WP:JUSTAVOTEvexample a bit better. Just a suggestion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I question weak arguments. I never do WP:JUSTAVOTE, and always have an argument relating to guidelines. WP:KETTLE on your part. Please refrain from this off topic discussionLibStar (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only say Dito to that.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. per the move to the event, which is undoubtedly notable.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep/Speedy Keep. Not just notable, but bordering on famous.  With 1,420 articles in just the past few days.  Clearly notable.  International coverage.  And multiple events (kidnapping, death).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As this story is covered in greater depth, more information about the details of her captors and attempted rescue will become known.Bangabandhu (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * maybe or maybe not. but we don't create articles on people because we think more info will be supplied later. WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a question of an article, to article asessment. A certains tandard doesnt apply to all article as it differs.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I think it has been established that Linda was notable, both as a person and what happened to her. Lets end this Afd ASAP.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per TomPointTwo's excellent summary: "WP:BLP1E is designed to discourage the creation of biographical articles for individuals who are only know as peripheral participants in a single notable event. It is not intended to dissuade coverage of that notable event simply because it revolves around a single individual." This event, a failed military operation by US special forces to free a Western hostage in Afghanistan ultimately ending in the hostage's death, is notable. Keristrasza (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to the other reasons, perhaps researchers in the future will benefit from having encyclopedic-quality information about Linda, the special work she did and the special way her life ended. For example, they could be doing research about aid workers and where some people are willing to go to help others. eug (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Their is always improvements that can be done, but that doesnt mean that the article isnt Wikipedia worthy. It is still possible that mutch new information will surface during the enxt few weeks. And also more reactions etc etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. if she still gets coverage a year or even 6 months from now, I would consider it. but simply creating articles based on recent news coverage is not what WP is about. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, as already established her notaiblity goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * this is not established. please stop forcing your view onto others. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop accusing me of things that arent true. And for the record you tried to force your view on me on other Afd if you are implying that I just did, because you wrote to me in the same way on other Afds. Anyway I guess we have to agree to disagree. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "as already established her notaiblity goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS." that is an opinion. if it was established I would easily vote keep. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This isnt a vote, it is a forum to raise "opinions" on a certain article and per other Keep sayers opinions I personally think it truly has been established that her notability goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

then it is not "already established her notaiblity goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS." it is more correct to say "many people believe she goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS". yes I agree it is not a vote, and therefore you have no right to ask an admin to close this ASAP. this can only be done under WP:SNOW or WP:SPEEDY. otherwise AfDs run for 7 days not for how long you think they should run. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I havent claimed to have the power to make a admin close a Afd, but you have and I dont honestly see where from you have been given the impression that I have the power to make a admin close a Afd as you claim?.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The guidance of DUCKSEASON might be helpful. Fæ (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Wikinews is a more appropriate place for this content. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to make something clear, I havent contacted or asked a admin to close thid Afd I have simple stated that I personally think that notaiblity beyond any reasonable doubt has been established. So please dont accuse me of anything that isnt true.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I will end my part of this discussion here and now, im feeling a meta-debate starting and those always end up ugly with a "im right you are wrong" kind of situation. I think keep you think delete. Its OK to have different opinions. Also, in my opinion its only a matter of time before this Afd is closed as Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * you said " would suggestion a close of this Afd discussion ASAP so that we can focus on doing the article even better. " we do not make demands to close discussions ASAP, this never occurs in AfDs, especially articles you have been closely involved in. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that has to stand for you then Libstar, because I have only stated my personal opinion on the forum, and you claim that I have requested it to a admin. Its a huge difference. But however it will not change the fact that it will end with Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * in fact you make a request twice "Comment: I think it has been established that Linda was notable, both as a person and what happened to her. Lets end this Afd ASAP". I've never seen this in an AfD except from an article creator desperately wanting to keep. who are you directing these comments to? an admin who has the power to close? LibStar (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I was asking how can you say that an opinion is a request to an admin? and were from do you get the impression that I have the power to get an admin to close a Afd. I believe that any admin review this can make up his own mind with or without any comments from me about it my friend.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * as you can believe this person is so obviously notable looking at the discusion, then any closing admin (a non involved third party) will close it as such. there is no need to pre-empt especially as your the article creator. LibStar (talk)

13:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It could also be because a large majority here think that Keep is the best option, have you considered that to be a reason for closing it as sutch?--BabbaQ (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * there is no reason for you as the article creator to suggest twice that this AfD should be closed ASAP. let it run its course. it could run longer and there may be more votes some keep or are you scared of delete. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as you shouldnt accuse me of something totallt irrelevant and false and just let the Afd let it run its course.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Stong keep. Personally, I find statements such as, "if she still gets coverage a year or even 6 months from now..." virtually beyond polite description. I wonder if this debate would even be taking place if the subject was American. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that the simple answer to that is No. And I totally agree with your point.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

*Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Example of Recentism, in form of writing without a long-term or historical view that inflates the importance of a topic. Mootros. (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  —LibStar (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  —LibStar (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Snow/Speedy. I urge that this be closed at this point as a speedy and/or snow, as it is clear that there is not a snowball's chance this AfD (where deletion is not even clearly endorsed by the nom) will result in deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read beyond the blurb you will find that this article meets the inclusion criteria for recent events, the guideline in which NOTNEWS draws from. To quote form the guildeline verbatim: Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. and Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. This incident is not only a international humanitarian and political incident but also a crime and notable military operation. I suggest you read a bit further into the guideline you're citing. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Nothing like this comes really through in the article in its current form. At the moment it primarily focuses on the person and the moment of her death. Mootros (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As you will (should?) notice the article, in it's infancy, already meets the general notability guideline and has achieved coverage from diverse sources. It is also an event that is garnering extensive analyzation (from a political, military and NGO perspectives) and therefor meets the guideline as I laid out above. I'm not really sure where you're coming from by saying "nothing". TomPointTwo (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Tom. First, the article does evidence the widespread intl impact, etc., evidencing notability.  second, if Moot believes simply that the article in its current form does not do so -- but that in reality it is notable as Tom points out-- the answer is sofixit.  Fix the article.  Don't delete it.  That's why an overwhelming percentage of the editors here have voted !keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Mootros--please stop deleting references from the article during the AfD.  It could be seen as an effort to adversely impact the !votes here, and is an effort that does not have consensus support.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing to add to points which have been made already. Philip Cross (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Tentative Keep in light of todays developments . It looks like a full scale review/investigation will occur which means ongoing coverage/analysis and possible widescale impact. Certainly it is going to be controversial. Recommend revisiting the article in a few months to re-assess. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 11:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as tmorton has said, this is no ordinary "hostage takers kill hostage" story Janemccallion (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC) — Janemccallion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * agreed.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above, with mention of dishonour for nom. 124.147.112.36 (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC) — 124.147.112.36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There is no need to bad-mouth the nominator. This AfD was raised on an early badly named BDP that appeared to be a blatant NOTNEWS failure and was marked for a speedy deletion (A7). The nomination was raised to have wider discussion than a speedy would allow. Most of the comments raised in this AfD relate to a better sourced renamed version which is about the event rather than the person. Fæ (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Snow keep This is not WP:NOTNEWS; she has received international coverage and will likely stay notable due to the ramifications of this incident. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep After reading news here in Czech Republic, I looked naturally for Wikipedia - whether there might be any other supplemental information on Linda Norgrove. It was only natural for me to expect, that she would be covered here. Her unfortunate death meets beyond doubt the criteria of notability, not only because of the international coverage, but also due the following ramification - consequences of the action of the rescue team and related debate. If this article will be well categorized now, it will stay valuable enough also for the future, as it will create part of the substratum on the picture of the whole conflict and so it will become right target to be linked at from other more general articles on the Afghanistan war, hijack & Rescue topics.  R eo  ON   |   + + +  16:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this seems to be an event which will have ramifications on the overall handling of the Afghanistan War and abductions of civilians. Deleting it will play into the hands of those who like to have unpalatable news hidden in obscurity and forgotten... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.141.54 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has been reported upon in major international media. —Lowellian (reply) 19:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given the rapidity with which story-of-the-week gets forgotten in the mainstream media (a particular issue when it comes to civilian deaths in war), Wikipedia serves a vital role in preserving such matters for the sake of researchers looking to follow up on a "memory hole-d" story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.68.143 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)  — 64.134.68.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - Let's be serious! Huge notability. Everywhere in the media. Important person also! ( G a b i n h o >:) 20:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep - While she was not notable, her death has ongoing "stickiness" - the sequelae will almost certainly be ongoing and notable. VIPs will get fired (sacked) for this. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (replacing my initial comment above raised before the article was renamed) if the article is not about Norgrove's life history but the kidnapping, terrorist negotiations, probable death by friendly-fire, misreporting, political impact and the official investigation. A further rename might help keep the article on track. Fæ (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I second this! Mootros (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While I do not support returning to the original article title, a biographical outline as part of a wider article on the kidnapping, terrorist negotiations, possible death by friendly-fire, misreporting, political impact, wider reactions and the official investigation is warrented as it provides background. I know that some deletionist Wikipedians have a particular dislike for biographical information (although I not sure if that is what is being suggested above) but as many reliable sources which are independent of the subject have given Norgrove's background some significant attention, biographical information is appropriate for inclusion here. I would however consider any proposed rename on its merits or demerits. Given that this seems to be very clearly a Snow Keep, I would suggest that this AfD be closed any any discussion on renaming be taken to the article's talk page. Greenshed (talk)
 * Agree completely w/Greenshed (and the above 29 or so !keep votes). This AfD no longer serves any useful purpose.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Ms Norgren has been reported as being an aid worker. However, DAI is a FOR PROFIT company operating out of Washington DC. They have a list of positions open on their website and the list is hardly anything like aid workers. Unless someone can verify just what her real employment position at DAI was, I think this "celebration" of her unfortunate demise is premature. I am guessing, but seems that DAI would do work for the US Government. That she was British is not really pertinate to the story except that it seems to have elevated her death to the PM level within the British Government. There is more to this story than has been made available so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouAz (talk • contribs) 04:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC) — LouAz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * weak keep not notable of herself, but there is some precedence set what with the probe et al. If it is not suitable here, where wouldbe suitable (bearing in mind the article is longer than just a brief mention ifn soem War in Afghanistan spliy off page.(Lihaas (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC));
 * Delete If her death changes anything, then it would be notable; but as of now, it is an article about somebody dying, possibly under unclear circumstances, possibly with minor repercussions. Nergaal (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin A very high number of single purpose editors have appeared here which is a sign of off-wiki canvassing. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few SPAs. But I don't know why that would be viewed as a sign of canvassing (if anything, perhaps socking, but there is no evidence of that). And let's face it -- the nom himself is an SPA, with this nomination his fourth edit ever. In any event, we often see more SPAs when an article is very much in the news, such as this article which is attracting 10,000 viewers a day in its first two full days. People come to a page that they think clearly of interest, see an AfD notice, and say "what the hell ... I'll leave my opinion". The SPAs are in line with the vast majority of !voters here -- even if you limited it to !voters with 1,000 or more !votes, it would be an overwhelming !keep. The same if you limited it to !voters with 21,000 or more !votes -- though then Libstar's !vote would not be counted ... in fact, then none of the few !delete voters !votes would be counted.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * but would attract someone to simply come here and vote keep with little knowledge of the deletion process in Wikipedia? LibStar (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * People have to start sometime. What seems to them like an outrageous effort to delete an item as non-notable would be one of the more compelling reasons to start.  Their comments are in line with that -- they are not, as you can see, heavy on wiki concepts/terminology.  Starting an AfD, as the nom did on his fourth edit ever, is by far the more curious happening, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Libstar, I admire your entusiasm, but its time to let this one go. Its obvious that a majority on Wikipedia think this one is a keeper. Also its more usual that a Delete Afd get mass-delete "voting" with little or non other explaination than that the article is non-notable. With no further explaination fromhte Delete saying party.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Libstar. If you have evidence of off-wiki canvassing, then please produce it.  If not then I would ask you to assume good faith. Greenshed (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep for now andycjp (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * LibStar time to read WP:LETGO. no way in hell that this article will be deleted.--Wikireader41 (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * not expecting it to be deleted, but have never noticed so many single purpose editors popping up on one AfD. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have -- in articles like this one about someone getting 10K hits a day. I've never noticed an AfD that I can recall, however, nominated by an editor on their fourth edit ever.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * very interesting   It was his FIRST edit not 4th Epeefleche. looks like we may never hear from him again.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great point. I stand corrected.  Though I differ ... we may hear from him again.  Wearing a different mask.  Or in a sock investigation.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - killing had international repercussions between the US and Britain and is thus notable. David Straub (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Isnt this starting to look like a snow keep?--BabbaQ (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - For all the reasons already given above. International attention. Political and diplomatic implications. Likely effects on public opinion. No coherent or plausible rationale has even been offered for deletion of the article. It appears to be unsupported and tendentious caprice. Lachrie (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd call it flurries. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At 34 !keeps, and 4 !deletes (if I am counting correctly), it looks like white-out conditions to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - at least until death has been investigated, discussion has died down, and full ramifications somewhat understood.--Alterrabe (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant    talk    22:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article is about a very important event. The article is well written and well sourced, 31 references. That clearly establishes notability. I don't understand why there was a CSD in the first place. -- Alpha Quadrant   talk    22:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOW.   Snotty Wong   gab 22:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:SNOW; it's definitely a notable topic under the guidelines. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Major International event, and that;s enough reason. I am not able to predict exactly what will be in history books 50 years from now. Perhaps she will not be mentioned in one volume school histories of the US involvement in the Middle East. But based on what historians actually do, this will certainly be in the detailed comprehensive works, and probably feature in some special books as well. The world tends to get interested in specific cases involving particular individuals. We're part of the world.    DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough valid information to fill an article. Over ten thousand people came to read the article in a single day!  I agree that a Prime Minister commenting on this case, makes it notable.   D r e a m Focus  11:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like an odd precedent to set and not supported by the GNG; that everything the Prime Minister is reported to have commented on is notable. By that rationale The Border Cod should be notable based on his widely reported photo op there after a post-ash-cloud helecopter ride. Fæ (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If it ever does anything historically significant worthy of international media attention and comment by the leaders of nations, then of course, it'll have its own article as well. Maybe after the pilot has a heart attack, it jumps up on the controllers, hits the autopilot it saw the pilot pushing and knew by now needed to be done, and thus saves the life of the Prime Minister.  That'd make the little dog notable.   D r e a m Focus  13:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify it was a chip shop rather than a dog. Cameron was (notably?) widely reported in the national press as buying 26 portions of fish and chips there after his heroic ash-cloud-defying helicopter ride. There were no reports of survivors. Fæ (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The burger place American President Obama went to has its own article, it surviving the AFD for it as I recall.  D r e a m Focus  21:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as the subject clearly satisfies the notability guideline via significant coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. Article is also well-sourced, satisfying WP:V. No clear, logical, policy-based rationale has been made for deletion. It may be better to rename the article "Death of Linda Norgrove" to cover the actual event as opposed to the person. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "Linda Norgrove", delete/merge "Death of Linda Norgrove" as unuseful fork. 142.167.66.225 (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC) — 142.167.66.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Towards the top of this AfD I suggested that it was re-opened as a discussion about "Death of Linda Norgrove" when the article "Linda Norgrove" was renamed. Mistaken comments based on the confusion that the nomination as stated is no longer valid could have been avoided. Fæ (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the name, you discuss it and then rename it. No need to open a second discussion about the same article.   D r e a m Focus  21:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing the fundamental context of an article by default invalidates any active deletion discussion. Many of the comments on this page make the point that the article should be about the event not the person which was exactly what the rename was for and none of these comments are relevant for a keep or delete discussion (after all, the article "Linda Norgrove" no longer exists so how can we now choose to keep it?). I struck out my initial comment for this reason and I encourage other contributors to do the same if they were confused about the name of the article under discussion. Fæ (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fæ everyone is entitled to their opinion, just as you. This is an obvious snow keep afd. and that will not change even if some would struck their initial keep responses. its time to let this one go my friend.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You entirely missed my point, as evidenced by the fact that it was my delete response that I struck out. Fæ (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep Per most of the above keeps — BQZip01 —  talk 05:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, its snow keep by now.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep has spoken about the Czech Republic above, it is also notable here in France :  Comte0 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One more step towards snow keep. This is starting to look ridiculous. Its time to close this discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I swear there must be a "cabal" or committee of vultures always swooping overhead to slam the delete hammer on any new article that tarnishes the holy pure Wikipedia. This is getting really ridiculous. We need to start sanctioning people who post frivolous deletion recommendations. Or have a mandatory 3 week waiting period. Back to the topic at hand, I came to this article because my browser is set to search Wikipedia when I type something in the URL box. I typed "Linda Norgrove" and it came to this page. People are looking for this page. I see no reason at all why it should be deleted.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, had it been the opposit way that there had been a huge number of delete sayers then this article would have been deleted already. But as this is a Keep majority then it should be weeks of waiting and that is always encourage by some fanatic delete sayers. There is a huge double standard when it comes to Afds on Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Accusing people of cabalism or some secret initiative is one sure fire way to get your opinions (rightly) ignored. Just saying :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to remind you that articles do improve over time. This AfD was raised by X sprainpraxisL on this version well before 95%+ of the published sources now in the article existed and when there was a reasonable rationale for considering such an article in breach of WP:NOTNEWS. If there is some sort of secret cabal keeping Wikipedia holy and pure, then this AfD would be a rather poor example of it in action. If you want to complain about the secret cabal, I'm sure most of us would love to see you do so at WP:ANI. Fæ (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We're getting off track. Yes, when the nom made his first-ever edit, nominating this article for deletion, there were fewer refs (always the case with breaking news, whatever it is).  Yes, even at that point, the first five commentators !voted keep, suggesting that there was reason to question the first-time-ever nom.  Yes, the above !votes are enormously in favor of !keep.  Yes, most !delete voters have not changed their !votes even after new coverage surfaced (I applaud Fae for doing so -- so few people change their minds upon looking at the facts).  And yes, I would support a tracking of success levels of noms at AfDs.  And think that a slow-down of those with the lowest success levels would be appropriate.  But having said all that, we are getting off track, and discussion here is probably best kept to this AfD, which curiously has not been closed as a snow despite all the above, and the (44-4?) !vote at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are so right Epeefleche.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is indeed surprising that this AfD has not been snow-closed. It is very easy to nominate an article for deletion and then lots of work goes into the discussion which might more profitably go into improving something more important such as verifiability in the rest of the encyclopedia. Greenshed (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2010 (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.