Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariam Makhniashvili


 * 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   delete. The clear argument here is that this sad occurence is unfortunately routine, and does not stand out from other similar crimes enough to warrant an article. Kevin (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Mariam Makhniashvili

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD (I was the PROD-er.) Article is about a missing high-school student not notable for anything other than disappearing. Per Notability_(criminal_acts), "A victim of a high-profile crime does not automatically qualify as being notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on his or her status as a victim...As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission." Granted it is not yet known if there was a crime here, but WP:BLP1E still applies, and Makhniashvili simply isn't notable other than the fact that she is currently missing, even though her disappearance has generated a lot of local media coverage. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * not notable for anything other than disappearing is simply not accurate: the case of the missing child, Mariam Makhniashvili, is notable because of the precedent setting and distinctive lengths the authorities have gone to find her Toronto Star, including, but not limited to, house to house searching of 6,000 residences (a recent precedent for Toronto), interviewing an entire high school population (an historical precedent), using specialized equipment such as IR equipped helicopters, and transferring her case to an international jurisdiction Interpol (a rare occurrence).
 * One newspaper has termed the child's disappearance as bizarre and referring to police procedures as thinking outside the box Toronto Sun. This is certainly notable and unique with respect to police investigation technique.
 * Canada's National Newspaper, The Toronto Star, noted on November 17, 2009 article that,
 * There has never been a Toronto police search like the one for Mariam Makhniashvili.
 * Police have taken extraordinary steps to find an extraordinary teenager, one with virtually no personal profile in the city ... and taken the unprecedented step of assigning 60 detectives to knock on 6,000 doors in her neighbourhood.
 * Mark Mendelson, a former Toronto police homicide investigator ... can't recall a case like Mariam's in his 28 years on the force.
 * It is the lack of evidence that sets this apart from other high-profile cases.5TT45 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * has generated a lot of local media coverage does not address the international media coverage given to this case Georgian Times.
 * Dawn Bard does not substantiate assertions with any sources
 * This article should be included in Wikipedia because it conforms to notability criteria, as is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. The assessment of notability on the basis of news coverage should follow the same criteria for assessing the notability of the crime, as above. at WP:PERPETRATOR 5TT45 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * — User:5TT45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The edit, regarding few or no other edits has no relevance to this discussion and borders on incivility, as defined by explain your edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5TT45 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See Elizabeth Smart kidnapping for wiki precedent to the Makhniashvili case. Also note that Makhniashvili supersedes the notability of this case by its international scope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5TT45 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unique to this case are overtones of foreign politics, that is, Georgian political issues: the missing child's mother was a Georgian journalist and father a prominent intellectual; they left Georgia the same year as The Rose RevolutionToronto Star 5TT45 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * noting that Mariam Makhniashvili was nominated for deletion at about the same time its linked scribd.com article, since re-published was anonymously deleted (with malicious intent), and noting that this case may involve serious legal and immigration issues which potentially challenge the business interests of certain international groups,
 * What is the actual intent of the nomination for deletion? Is it in good faith or in fact an attempt by these parties to stifle publication? 5TT45 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't appreciate the implication that I am involved in any attempt to "stifle publication" to further "business interests of certain international groups" - they are completely untrue and completely unfounded. (Also, deleting a Wikipedia article doesn't "stifle publication" in any way.) To address a couple of other points:
 * Outside sources aren't required for an AFD - it's an internal Wikipedia process; I cited the relevant Wikipedia policy.
 * "Other stuff exists" is never the best argument in a deletion discussion, and the Elizabeth Smart case is different from this one, and therefore not relevant. Smart has had 3 books written about her and has more recently chosen to put herself in the public eye, and at any rate, there was no biography of her on Wikipedia while she was still missing.
 * WP:PERPETRATOR doesn't seem relevant, given that Makhniashvili isn't a perpetrator; if anything, she's a victim, and, per WP:VICTIM, "a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission." I don't see how that burden has been met here.
 * Dawn Bard (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  —Dawn Bard (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions.  —Dawn Bard (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions.  —Dawn Bard (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. No comments made in this discussion are personal, and we are sorry if any participants misinterpreted them as such: we merely asked a question relating the international scope of this case. We are surprised that Dawn Bard has associated themselves with the 'certain international groups', but that is not material to this discussion.
 * Reference to another Wikipedia article is not Other stuff exists but a citation of precedent, which is material to the argument. Further, Dawn Bard's personal opinion, 'is never the best argument in a deletion discussion' is not relevant to this discussion.
 * If we accept 'at any rate, there was no biography of her on Wikipedia while she was still missing' as true, then the entire argument to delete this article rests on the premise that somewhere out there is a sliding scale of notability based upon how many 'books' were written on a person. This is patently ridiculous.
 * This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and is therefore a notable topic
 * It conforms to Notability (criminal acts), which states that, 'A criminal act is notable if it receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope.' and 'While the victim(s) and perpetrator(s) of such a crime are often not notable on their own, this does not preclude the notability of the criminal act itself.'
 * Wiktionary defines notable as 'Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished.', and as shown above, this particular case is notable for several different reasons, including persistent and widespread media coverage, police technique and lack of evidence. While Wikitionary is not the basis of Wikipedia deletion policy, we believe that it is important to state the dictionary definition of notability for reference here.
 * Even if the subject of this article does not meet the individual requirements of notability, the crime itself is notable because of media coverage and the uniqueness of the effort to find the person.
 * Reference to WP:PERPETRATOR is in relation to 'assessment of notability on the basis of news coverage', and does not specifically relate to the title of the section.5TT45 (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I didn't associate myself with any international groups, you did above by implication, and I still don't appreciate it. "Other stuff exists" is an argument to be avoided in deletion discussions based on Wikipedia guidelines, not on my personal opinion. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep due to coverage in WP:RS more than meeting WP:GNG, and, per the above discussion, the fact that this case has sufficient indicia of uniqueness as to sharply distinguish it from the "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" inconsistent with WP:NOTNEWS. Andrea105 (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I tend to be rather flexible about accepting articles like these--but at this point with no evidence that there was even a crime, it does not meet BLP policy. No matter how many papers cover a routine disappearance, it does not make the subject notable. If there is some other development later, then possibly there can be an article about her, any one eventually accused of anything, or --most likely--the event. This is the   an exceptionally weak article of this sort    in terms of intrinsic importance--at least for now. If this meets the GNG, we need to replace the GNG.  That the police cannot solve a disappearance is not notable. That something is notable because nothing is known about it is a self-contradiction.  FWIW, in the Smart case this is  known to be  a crime for which someone was convicted and, more important, a book has been written about it, which is evidence of long-term notability     DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully disagree with the claim that we "need to replace the GNG" :) The general notability guideline is an objective metric by which notability may be assessed, through reference to the quantity and substantiality of coverage in third-party reliable sources. Without the guideline, the outcomes of AFD discussions would be determined largely by editors' perceptions of importance. Therefore, it would be impossible to determine, prior to starting an article, whether it would be considered notable, or whether all of one's efforts would be destroyed. To minimize systemic bias, it is far better to focus on whether RS treat a subject as unique, significant, and worthy of attention, than whether an article's topic happens to strike the fancy of editors participating in AFD. Andrea105 (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete there's no evidence given that this is anything more than a missing teenager. I do not believe that door-to-door canvasing is unique to this case (it's common in cases of missing children), nor do I believe that involvement of Interpol is unique or unusual. Having a large number of police and volunteers work on a missing child case for a short period of time is not unusual. This case, while unfortunate, does not pass WP:ONEEVENT. Mariam Makhniashvili may merit a Wikipedia article at some time in the future, but she doesn't now. –  j ak s mata  16:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete What makes this case different from so many other missing child cases? Sure it has received a lot of media attention, but for the time being it's not much different from hundreds of other cases. The article seems to me like a Missing Child poster, it provides little factual information about the case.  Gmantonz ( talk ) 14:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

5TT45 (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Trying to sort out the above, some of which which don't make a lot of sense,
 * I tend to be rather flexible about accepting articles like these
 * This is not an argument but the user's own opinion about their character. It does not contribute to the discussion.
 * What are articles like these? Is there a separate wiki section under a heading articles like these?
 * No matter how many papers cover a routine disappearance
 * The user does not provide any evidence that this is a routine disappearance.
 * That something is notable because nothing is known about it is a self-contradiction
 * The article does not state that the case is notable because the Police don't have any evidence, but because this is an anomaly with respect to other missing persons cases. That is, this is a precedent because there is no evidence, and never before, according to Police, has this occurred.
 * I do not believe that door-to-door canvassing is unique to this case (it's common in cases of missing children)
 * But over and over, media and Police have stated, in writing, that these door to door searches (not just canvassing), have set a precedent. If this user thinks it isn't, then please give us some evidence of comparable searches, with respect to missing persons, in Toronto, or even in Canada.
 * seems to me like a Missing Child poster
 * This isn't an argument, but an unfounded opinion


 * I don't find this aggressively argumentative tone constructive. People have a right to use phrases like "articles like these" as part of their arguments. It is easily understood as meaning "articles about victims of crimes who are not otherwise notable". --DanielRigal (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Routine disappearance of a teenager, nothing remarkable or notable. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I feel bad about saying delete, just like I do when we have to delete heartfelt obituaries, but this is a news story and not an encyclopaedic subject. Articles like this have been deleted in the past. If we are going to write about this at all it should be an article on the criminal act, not the victim, but there does not seem to be enough information to write anything encyclopaedic when there is not even proof of a criminal act. That might change as the story develops. In the meantime, it is incredibly unlikely that having this article would do anything to help find her anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. BLP1E would be easily side-stepped by calling this Disappearance of..., so we should focus on whether this event is notable. Applying the criteria in the proposal WP:EVENT, despite a large amount of local coverage it hasn't gained much attention outside Toronto, and isn't a unusual or unprecedented event, making the coverage largely routine. Further events and wider coverage might show notability at a later date, so no prejudice against recreating an article about this disappearance in that case. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:32, 29 November 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.