Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa McMurray


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge with Prevalence of rabies. Discussion closed by Graham Colm Talk 16:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Lisa McMurray

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. What is notable here? The unfortunate woman caught the disease in a rabies-active location, then took the disease back home to Northern Ireland, which remains a rabies-free jurisdiction. Just a consequence of modern-age jet travel. This whole matter is WP:ONEEVENT and hence not notable. WWGB (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Comment. I thought this might be controversial. I haven't yet added other sources which may be a problem. Just to list a few of the more familiar ones: BBC, Sky News (quite highly placed for such an insignificant story), TV3, Irish Independent, The Irish Times, MSN, Evening Herald, Irish Examiner... --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions.   —WWGB (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —WWGB (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ... World News, News Cred, Metro, The Irish Emigrant, Irish World News, The Belfast Telegraph, UTV, Mirror, The Scotsman, The Telegraph... oh and get this one, of all the random sources - The Arab Times... --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. All of which reminds me of Jett Travolta: lots of international media coverage, but no Wikipedia notability. WWGB (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea what you mean. However I would have thought the notability was in the fact that this is an extremely unusual, more or less unheard of, case in the history of a country's medical science. I simply provided the sources as proof that there were lots of references out there. --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 01:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ... how is the notability not justified in this case? Apart from the endless number of sources (all of which I simply cannot include as I have other things to be doing with my time) this was quite clearly a rare occurrence and certainly unheard of in the county in which it occurred. I would take issue with the "hence not notable" comment and would advise the nominator to at the very least attempt a google before coming to such a conclusion in future. To dismiss this as "just a consequence of modern-age jet travel" is heinous in my opinion. --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 00:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Then let me elaborate on WP:ONEEVENT: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Hence not notable. The incident is already mentioned more appropriately at Prevalence of rabies WWGB (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ? The link provided gives a vague mention to approximately three countries, none of which are Ireland (other than the listed mention at the top which has nothing to do with this case). --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 00:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an unusual case where the person has become connected to something almost unheard of in her part of the world. It is the first such case of this medically-related occurrence in living memory. I also don't think anything in the article obstructs neutrality which is one of the reasons outlined in this policy. --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge a pruned version with Prevalence of rabies; it's best understood in the context of the disease prevalence in "rabies-free" countries. In terms of rarity, there have apparently been 23 cases in the UK (including Northern Ireland) since 1946 and three others since 2000; there is more information from the Health Protection Agency on the prevalence in the UK here: Despite the plethora of sources, I agree with the nominator's characterisation of this as falling under WP:ONEEVENT. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the first death in Northern Ireland in 71 years. --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 01:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sadly but no notability. --Paukrus (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Shoulder shrug. Kay. However I am not the type of person to create articles on sons and daughters of famous people - I performed the necessary redirect for Dakota Culkin. I do not however think this compares. Notability cannot be inherited here. A case of medical science is incomparable to a case of overblown celebrity. --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability at all, simply a single event; same thing as the average murder victim. Star Garnet (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Are average murder victims notable if they involve unusual circumstances, are ground-breaking or lead to an alteration of a law or new discovery? --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 02:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On occasion they are, but as I said, this is the same as an average muder victim. If every rabies victim was reported, they would have to have their own article, which isn't going to happen.  And besides, there's almost certainly been an upreported case in the last 71 years. Star Garnet (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although it would be difficult to find a report, or indeed an unreport, of an actual death in that part of the world during that period. The point is that is a significant death, no more than those who live to an extended period (many of the oldest people have articles purely for reaching a landmark age of death; this too is about someone whose circumstances were somewhat remarkable). Although age is not the issue here - moreso the circumstance and the rarity of such an occurrence. --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 03:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Adequately covered by the sentence "Indeed, since 1946 there have only been 23 reported cases of UK citizens getting rabies, all of them contracting the disease whilst abroad" at  (or some re-wording thereof, if desired). I usually don't support deletion if someone is willing to work on the article and find sources and so on, but in this case I'd need a lot better explanation of what we are trying to do - cover individually the 23 cases mentioned above? Cover people who contracted rabies but didn't happen to travel before getting sick? Kingdon (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the point is being missed, at the very least by the above user. The other rabies cases did not lead to death hence the elevation in notability of this particular case. The idea of 23 cases each having articles is absurd and I have never suggested that - there is no indication they even died! But again this would not be a issue if (a) this disease were not so rare, and (b) deaths from this disease were not so rare. --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 03:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the other 23 cases were actually 23 deaths. The wording in the HPA note is "Since 1946 there have been 23 deaths in people infected with rabies abroad, 3 of which have occurred since 2000." There's a listing of all reported UK cases from 1902 to 2005 in this paper: Surviving symptomatic rabies would be much more unusual. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - this statistic (and the unfortunate woman is indeed but a statistic) can easily be covered at Prevalence of rabies. If someone returns to NI from Africa next year and dies of rabies, will we delete this article and have one on that individual, and so on? Will we be having articles on the first rabies victim in the Netherlands in 63 years, the first typhoid victim in Denmark in 87 years, the first heart attack victim in France in 13 seconds? The slippery slope potentialities are myriad. True, lots of papers mentioned the case, but that's their job - ours is to record encyclopedic events, not news. The present case falls into the latter category, no doubt. - Biruitorul Talk 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If this can be covered elsewhere, then why are you not voting to merge? - Mgm|(talk) 11:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have clarified. By "covered" I meant changing "23" to "24" here (perhaps with the phrase "the most recent death occurring in 2009[1]"), not a full-scale merge. - Biruitorul Talk 15:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. Espresso Addict makes an excellent case. While ONEEVENT means the person is not a likely target for a bio article, a person from a rabies free country who catches rabies is worthy of mention in a related article for which Prevalence of rabies is a perfect candidate. - Mgm|(talk) 11:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have merged this to Prevalence_of_rabies. This discussion can now be closed as a redirect. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Into one of the rabies articles.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2009 (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.