Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariana Bridi da Costa


 * 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mariana Bridi da Costa

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

No notability except gruesome death and fact that she was a model. Nominated for deletion in the German language and Portuguese language wikis. Hektor (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you search for "Mariana Bridi da Costa" you will find nearly 3.000.000 hits on Google. Keep that article. -- Grochim (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick Google Search for the phrase "Mariana Bridi" reveals 137,000 pages that have been created within the last 12 months, of which 99,600 have been created in the past month, 85,200 in the past week, and 83,300 in the past 24 hours. That means 60.8% of online references to "Mariana Bridi" have been created within the past 24 hours.  Until news of her gruesome infection broke, she wasn't notable. --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, because I spend today at least 3 hours on that article and I'm really disappointed to hear that beside that strong media echo the article should be deleted I want to say this: The Wikipedia project is dependend on free workers and donates from other people. Many people work here because they believe that they can help with free knowledge other people. This poor girl has suffered a cruel illness and died far too young. Nevertheless she took part at famous contests, for example two times at the miss world contest. Of course she was not that rich and that famous like other stars, but I think she has deserved it to be mentioned here in Wikipedia. I know that this sounds a bit sentimental, but if I wouldn't be sentimental, if I would thinking fully rational, I wouldn't continue working on this project. So please keep this article. -- Grochim (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Top story on CNN? That's a Strong Keep. I'm avoiding mentioning anything as speedy since her notability was not set in stone before this. Wizardman  21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEWS Benefix (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that she's not notable and that the media pumped up the story because she's young and died gruesomely. But since she's in the spotlight now, Wikipedia needs to have an entry on it. - anon, 22:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep it. She was an attractive and famous model who met a tragic death at way too young of an age.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.250.254 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Drudge has it on a top link, so millions of people are hearing about it just from that source. Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.85.102 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from plain voting in AfD. This applies even to you. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that she was 4th in the Brazilian Miss World, not in the finals, as teh article seems to imply. Benefix (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes at least this article should be edited on this point. Hektor (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "She was also a finalist in the Brazilian stage of the Miss World 2008 beauty pageant and won fourth place." Seems clear to me. She was fourth in Brazil. Peridon (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 2007, she participated in the Miss Bikini International contest[1] and the Miss World 2007 beauty pageant where she secured fourth place" does not seem clear to me. Hektor (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the one I quoted was clear. If your one isn't, edit it. Peridon (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That info is wrong and not confirmed by independent reliable sources. Descíclope (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This will probably get more notable as the press get to it. To me, it's fairly notable already. Peridon (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete non notable as a model (information about her modeling career is wrong). If not deleted, it should be merged to Sepsis per WP:ONEEVENT (She is only notable because she was a model who died of Sepsis, not because of her career). Descíclope (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep She was news when she was alive and news when she died. This deserves an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peronista (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't understand why this article should be removed. The individual is real and the events retold are real (to my knowledge). If there is any mistake, it should be corrected, but the article must certainly be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.246.118 (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There was so much media interest in here, also I checked on google insight and there was incredible interest in many countries such a Finland, Australia and Germany. In life she was notable as a model too. Reargun (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to Sepsis. With all due respect, she's only mentioned here because she died. Her own career doesn't justify an article, per WP:N, and Wikipedia is not a memorial site.   SIS   00:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Future readers encountering elements of her story elsewhere are likely to visit Wikipedia looking for a comprehensive and concise biography highlighting the circumstances of her life and death. The story is significant, granting the subject notability she might not otherwise have rated in her budding career. -- Deborahjay (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Deborahjay -- Steevo714 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There was plenty of news coverage before she died, not just afterwards. This is not notability solely due to death. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I am concious that Wikipedia is not a memorial site but come on, it's not like we're writing an article about the unknown victim of a random shooting. What she did alive is notable enough for her to have her own Wikipedia article.  E.M.   talk  ●  contribs   01:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case any lady who scored fourth in a national Miss World beauty contest becomes notable. 90.1.64.31 (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to say is that there's plenty of articles about people who did or took part of nothing deserving of a Wikipedia article. I mean, who's Richard Hibbard? A random welsh rugby player who played in a insignificant rubgy union team. And there's PLENTY of articles like Richard's.  E.M.   talk  ●  contribs   13:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Maybe she is in here "just because she died." But then, other entries are entered in histroy also, "just because they did something else famous." OK, maybe dying isn't worthy in itself of an entry, but she has become a very newsworthy story, at least during this time. She was up-and-coming, and despite whether or not she lived a full and successful life, she's a human interest story that has attracted a lot of attention and sympathy. Sure, a year from now, her name will be forgotten, but isn't that part of what Wilipedia is trying to preserve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.165.211 (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Her case is referred to in the Pseudomonas aeruginosa article. Erxnmedia (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply to this article because WP:ONEEVENT applies to relatively insignificant events. Her death isn't insignificant based on the worldwide reaction. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Spot-on, although inadvertently. The world-wide reaction is significant, and if meta-sources can be found for that aspect, an article should be written about the eagerness with which her sad story is being exploited. Her tragedy just so happens to be the perfect material for a human interest story. A shame that people who successfully pretend to themselves to be suitable participants in an encyclopedic project are unable to tell the difference. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep She is notable Portillo (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from plain voting in AfD. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

--Reschrull (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:ONEEVENT most certainly applies, and we're not a memorial service either. I can't quite grab a pulse on why everyone wants to keep this but I'm sure it'll get killed the second time around... JBsupreme (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The gist of WP:ONEEVENT is "cover the event, not the person". Deletion would result in us covering neither. Therefore if you believe that section applies, it seems a merge and redirect would be more appropriate. the wub "?!"  12:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question It seems to me that the issue is whether she would have been qualified even with the material on her death. DGG (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but link to Sepsis. Her death brought significant attention to the importance of medical second opinions but more so the need for quick and effective diagnosis and treatment of UTI. It also raised public awareness of the need to pay attention to seemingly insignificant infections.
 * Keep. 209.105.207.151 (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from plain voting in AfD. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. --CheMechanical (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from plain voting in AfD. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep- This woman is the victim of a little-known bacterial infection, whose death made the news in several global news organizations. That is significant Arbiteroftruth  Plead Your Case 06:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This thing has made international news and is in the conciousness of many worldwide. Whether we like it or not, this story has become notable. Also I don't believe it's appropriate to bring into consideration the decisions taken by members of other Wikipedias. We, the members of this English language Wikipedia should rely solely on the facts that become clear to us instead of seeking to draw opinions from members of other Wikipedias. --Pavithran (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- This model became notable due to the circumstances of her death and it should be linked to the disease, bacteria and to Miss World entries. Wikipedia can contribute to the awareness of Urinary Infections.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.32.195 (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - It is true that the carreer of this unfortunate girl was not notable, but there are many people who have become notable because of how they died. The tragic death of Mariana Bridi da Costa has made headlines throughout the world (at least in most American and European countries). In that way, it has also drawn attention to Sepsis.JdeJ (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Lots of good points have already been made. In particular, keep due to the worldwide attention this person has received in the news lately, along with what may be longer-term effects on medical standards of care (see Reschrull's post above, for example).  *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 08:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article was also nominated for deletion on Portuguese Wikipedia and is currently losing by large marge of votes. I ask people here for support there. Thanks --Saulotardeli (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC) — Saulotardeli (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Is it allowed to do that ? Hektor (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've put a note in the Portuguese discussion about this canvassing, and it's up to them what they do about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment On pt Wikipedia, people who does not have more than 100 contributions (main Namespace) and 45 days since the first contribution before the deletion discussion started, can't vote on pt wikipedia. So if you wanna vote on pt wikipedia, you need to contribute there first. Descíclope (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Beautiful young woman dies a tragic death. It's a human interest story, not the basis for an encyclopedic article. But since Wikipedia is not an encyclopedic project, we are going to keep it. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask 1,000 Wikipedia users to define "encyclopedic". You'll get a thousand answers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Struhs (talk • contribs) 22:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Yes I ask the people here for support of other languages, too, also in the German Wikipedia, Portuguese and Netherlands. -- Grochim (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong venue, use the article talk page. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Didn't notice those where links to deletion discussions. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've put comments in those deletion discussions to let them know about this canvassing. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:ONEEVENT. List her name on Sepsis with a link to one of the noteworthy news sources.61.27.60.71 (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a VOTE ? AFd is not a vote. Furthermore, invalidating contributions when you are yourself an unregistered user, Mr 201.79.187.186 is a bit of a joke. Hektor (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's me, Saulo. And Yes, this is a vote just see "Delete". I can't vote for being too young registered user but unregistered users also cant vote but this doesn't mean I can't point irregular votes. --Saulotardeli (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC) — Saulotardeli (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please have a look at How to discuss an AfD. "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. " Hektor (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The manner of her death aids her notability (I feel so heartless saying that; she was a real person...) although on its own I agree is a bit of a WP:ONEEVENT. However, combined with her reasonable success modelling, she makes the right side of notable to my mind, if not by much. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep:Strong media and public interest and puts a face on a rare medical disease.Ekem (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: She was notable before her death, and the manner adds to her notability as Blood Red stated above. NoVomit (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Her career before her death contributed some notability; the manner of her death contributed more. With the notability from both combined, there is enough notability for an article.  With just one or the other, probably not.  WP:ONEEVENT does not apply, because she is notable for more than one event. JulesH (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Ekem (talk). The strong media attention regarding her death adds to notability. Raphie (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep no discussion. notable--Judo112 (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from plain voting in AfD. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. A textbook case of WP:NOT. A Google News archive search that looks for articles more than a month old finds nothing, and no other evidence of notability apart from immediate news coverage of the subject's death has been presented. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Maybe I'm wrong but she seems to have represented Brazil in Miss World? She must therefore have won some national competition to get there? I only presume this as I'm not familiar with procedures. She seems to also have paced in more than one such competition. Compare Katy French, another such model widely known in Ireland for her relationships and numerous TV appearances before her death took over the headlines just over a year ago. --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 15:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. See the discussion above. She didn't represent Brazil at Miss World - she came fourth in the competition to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, a non-notable model who died a peculiar death. Textbook WP:BLP1E. Aecis·(away) talk 15:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Articles on BBC in the UK, CNN in the US , Expressen in Sweden , Corriere della Sera in Italy and so on. A person covered by the main news channel and newspapers througout the world would appear to be notable. I'm surprised this isn't a speedy keep.JdeJ (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. I believe her notability can be build upon as per Candlewicke. rkmlai (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - she is a news report. Her career as a model is not sufficient to establish notability so essentially, she's known for a single event.  -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Musicians who place in a serious music contest and people who have been nominated for a significant award are considered notable according to the WP:BIO guidelines. So being a finalist in all these peagants should be considered notable in the same vain. Her death may get too much attention, but that can be solved with editing. The fact person details like age, etc show it's possible to shift the focus. - Mgm|(talk) 17:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment She wasn't finalist. That news is fake. Her modeling career is irrelevant. Descíclope (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep it makes you look like a lot of small minded creeps in view of the fact 1) it's a major news story, 2) you have millions of articles and it's common for a high profile news item to result in an article, and 3) this isn't the German wiki (fortunately). Lycurgus (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do I need to point out that "small minded creeps" is based on your very own worldview? Also, if it weren't so ludicrous a thing to say for someone who wants to keep this "article", I might read it as an offensive remark directed at other editors. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No you don't; Yes that is my world view; I said "makes you look like"; and I meant that subset campaigning for deletion. Anyway, doesn't appear to matter looks like this is one of those case where the right thing will happen.72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have edited my comment. Please don't do that again. 'Nuff said. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * subset You. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Reliable sources BBC/CNN seems to think she's notable, so she is. Speedy, because Nom seems very pointy- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Nom seems very pointy". No. No, it does not. Please explain or refrain. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a high profile item on many top news channels. It is to be expected that lots and lots of people are going to be coming to the wikipedia to find out more. I wouldn't expect under those conditions for them to have to face a large and fairly in-your-face tag leading to a page full of people bickering over the fine points of whether a model is important enough to grace the pages of the wikipedia. I therefore continue to claim that this is a self-evidently pointy nom, and call for a speedy keep.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What WP:POINT do you believe the nominator was trying to make? -- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to read minds as to why, but it looks disruptive to me.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'd like to point out that the IP 78.34.148.245 who is campaigning so hard for the article to be deleted is a single-purpose account whose every contribution is related to this topic. The provocative comments by this user and the fact that he/she came directly here makes it very likely that we're dealing with a sockpuppet.JdeJ (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Newsflash that's an unfair characterization, many internet carriers assign you a new IP address every time you connect to the internet or the power goes out. Try not to make personal attacks on people when you have no basis to do so.  JBsupreme (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't have that much choice but to prioritise well-established registered accounts higher than anonymous accounts in these discussions.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have the choice of basing the judgement on the quality of the arguments, rather than the degree to which the participants in the discussion are "established". 88.234.217.196 (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am worried solely about the quality of discussion, not "campaigning so hard for the article to be deleted". 78.34.148.245 (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need anyone monitoring "the quality of the discussion", thank you. We know your opinion.JdeJ (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "We"? Please speak for yourself. Also, I beg to differ. Some of the keep voters have refactored others' comments, made personal attacks and plain voted. They need to be reminded that none of that is acceptable. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that editors who have been on Wikipedia for years need someone who turned up today to monitor them? We have administrators doing that. And your claim that it is only those who disagree with you who behave badly speaks volumes about your WP:POV.JdeJ (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FTR I only edited text I didn't author for layout/flow (except for attempting to remove the thread I started), just a personal quirk, for example I find the use of the list marker for the thread entries above irritating, but I see it's been done from the start of the page. Also what is 'plain voting'? What process is underway on this page? 72.228.150.44 (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Plain voting is when you don't back your general stance (keep, delete, merge elsewhere etc) up with any kind of reasoning as to why this or that should iyo happen with the article. AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion. See also WP:NOREASON. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (I think I got the level of reply right, it's getting difficult, maybe time to unindent) Let's get something straight for everyone on this AfD: Nobody's opinion is worth more or less than anybody elses and everyone is allowed to do any task unless a)it uses tools restricted to administrators b) they've abused the right in the past and been banned from doing so. And, if you do take the view that established users have more important opinions, this is coming from an administrator. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * a) I find it's very easy to maintain proper indenting simply by copypasting the colons from the comment you're replying to and adding one. b) Did I say or imply anything to the effect that I think that the validity of input hinges on "seniority" or anything of the sort? I sure hope didn't. Nevertheless, some types of comments are more valid than others. Plain voting is the least valid type of discussion input. Not just my opinion, WP:AfD happens to agree with me. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean your comments on voting - you're quite right about them. It was more aimed as a general comment as it has been said a couple of times - including to try to discredit you just above. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you argue "strong keep", and don't appear to mind a host of truly unacceptable behaviour from people who also want it kept. The point you're desperately trying to make is really on yourself. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Even a perfunctory glance at the sources used for this article reveals that none of them is dated prior to 22 January 2009 -- in other words, 3 days ago.  As unfortunate as the circumstances of this woman's death may be, before she contracted this disease, she wasn't notable.  Fourth place in a modeling competition? Please, people -- it is pure sentimentality, perhaps combined with a certain horrified voyeurism, that fuels the drive to keep this article.  A gruesome death does not notability make; if it did, the woman who died in my hometown of necrotizing fasciitis ("flesh-eating bacteria"), a truly hideous way to die, would appear in Wikipedia, and she does not. Relegate this story to a note in the Sepsis article where it belongs.--Nonstopdrivel (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well she probably would have if she had also been a beauty queen in her early twenties and the story had already become an international media event. *layout/flow and other uncaught exceptions created by other editors. Lycurgus (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe this editor Nonstopdrivel did understood about 'Miss World Finalist' competition and wan't to degrading it? --B767-500 (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Keepher story is notable insofar as it helps discussion of her disease, as well as being part of the beauty contest project. versen (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep reliable and verifiable sources provided about the article subject support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Review: There are more than enough sources out there from the before, and during her illness, and after her death that WP:BIO is satisfied, and since she would probably have been notable before illness, oneevent doesn't appear to apply. I recommend we keep the article, and review it in sufficient time to see if the coverage of her illness and death makes up too much of the article, or is about right. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This references have informations, which means to keep it:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Norum (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: as it was mentioned before, when you do a Google search on her, her name has a lot of returns. Despite the fact she has not won the pageants, but she finished 4th on two occasions. That's a relative notability and her death has been posted on websites like the Sun (UK) and CNN.
 * I will grant this argument if other instances of models whose primary claims to fame (outside their death) are placing fourth in national beauty pageants having articles in Wikipedia can be produced. --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. She's notable person. --Paukrus (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Portillo (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide more information than just a vote. What makes her notable? Aecis·(away) talk 08:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it a bit hard to believe that people seriously argue that a person covered by the CNN, BBC, The Sun, Guardian, Corriere della Sera, Expressen and many other news channels and newspaper is not "notable". Which new definition do you give to notable to arrive that a person noted throughout the world is not notable?JdeJ (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   --  Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  07:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep massive media coverage on mainstream press. --Ciao 90 (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This case resembles that of Ruslana Korshunova, whose article was kept. It's true that Ruslana was more notable, nonetheless she came in the spotlight after her tragic death - Alternatively, i suggest merging with sepsis -- Itemirus  Talk Page  09:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Who has heard of Albert_Alexander? Was he *notable*? IMHO, notability policy is to prevent articles about, well, anyone. In this case, her death was an event that generated significant coverage, and people would come to Wikipedia (just like I did) because they would expect to find an article about this person together with relevant facts about her and her death. If Wikipedia deletes this entry, it is IMO just reducing its usefulness to all of us, exactly against its stated goals. Billyj (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It would seem that many people do not understand what "notable" means. If a person has been covered by leading newspapers in many countries and many continents, that person is notable. So what these people seem to do is to invent a new requirement, not only must a person be notable, but the person must also be notable in a certain way, satisfying their own requirements. I say it reeks of censorship. A question to those who argue that she is only because she died: more than 100.000 persons die each day, do you see a large number of articles about them throughout the world? No, 99.99999% of all people die without being covered even by a minor local newspaper. They are not notable. When a person's death is noted by newspapers and newschannel in Brazil, in the US, in the UK, in Italy, in Scandinavia, in Germany and many other countries, then the person is notable.JdeJ (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that Ms Bridi da Costa would probably have become notable if it were not for her tragic infection and horrific death. Whether she did become notable... that's trickier to say. DS (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. So much callousness & disrespect by people in this "community". The woman suffered terribly & did not survive a disfiguring illness. People don't have the minimal decency to wait for her family to mourn and bury their daughter! But this "community" wants to delete her on the day she dies? Daxmac (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Comment copied from talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This person isnt notable for just a one time event but for several different events/happenings. Her beauty pageant participations and her modeling career and other stuff it seems. Its a definite keeper.--Judo112 (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seriously, is anyone in the world at large going to remember who she is in ten or even five years' time? 60.51.98.228 (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is anonymous or recent users allowed to vote? This IP was only used in two edits to vote. The same above with users 60.51.98.228 and 78.34.148.245. --Saulotardeli (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Saulotardeli, your comments reveal how much you really know. (i) Nobody should vote; instead, everyone should make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments . (ii) For heaven's sake, please just carefully read through Articles for deletion. Yes, people editing from IP address are very much allowed to participate in deletion discussions. You're becoming disruptive, and that's not evem going into your single-purpose contributions. 78.34.137.140 (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Can I move closure as the discussion seems to be degrading? (I'm glad I'm not an admin - I'd hate to try to sort this one out!) Peridon (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. It's a no-consensus-defaults-to-keep anyway. 78.34.137.140 (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The late Ms. Bridi is not notable for her achievements; even the Portuguese Wikipedia did not have an article on her before her untimely and sad death. The media attention spent on this case is somehow based on the perception that the tragic death of a young woman is more tragic if she happens to be beautiful. Soon, however, this case will be out of the news and the public eye and forgotten, except by her family and friends. Not coincidentally, on four of the five Wikipedias that have an article on the person, it has been nominated for deletion. 88.233.38.17 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep since she's died, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Is this news or notability? Certainly, her plight was covered as much as the little girl down the well and Ryan White (now a featured article). Time will tell whether she'll be remembered five or ten years on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This story has evolved to be of deep international, intercultural interest.  Web traffic to this article alone ought to speak for itself. Struhs (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia isn't the news, nor is it E! Entertainment. Human-interest stories that will be forgotten in 50 years are not notable enough because notability isn't temporary. Themfromspace (talk)
 * That is nonsense. We have thousands of articles on people who will be forgotten in 50 years and are not even famous now, such as thousands of players in minor sport leagues. Put the combined media coverage of 1000 of them together and it would not equal the media coverage Mariana Bridi has received. As I already said, many of those who vote delete seem to be frustrated that she became famous through her death, and that is their problem. It doesn't mean that she isn't notable.JdeJ (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (i) "We have thousands of articles [...]" — See WP:OTHERCRAP. (ii) "many of those who vote delete seem to be frustrated that she became famous through her death, and that is their problem" — Not to hammer the point beyond pertinence to this discussion, but. If this comment is the actual result of you spending time thinking, you are better off not speculating on other people's reasoning under any circumstances, ever. 78.34.138.80 (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I recommend you to read WP:CIVIL as it is fairly obvious that you have no idea about how to behave.JdeJ (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And you do? 78.34.138.80 (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way, I don't go around using "My God" or "Oh dude" in edit summaries, and I don't comment on other editors' mental abilities and I don't call other editor's contributions "crap". None of that is of any relevance and doesn't contribute anything. I have commented on the fact that some editors on this page seem to take a moral stance. That, however, is directly related to the topic under discussion whereas I'm afraid that your contributions, the ones I listed above, are more aimed to provoking than contributing.JdeJ (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This really doesn't belong here anymore, but since you've civilly made it clear that you don't want me to respond at your talk page, I might as well respond here: Some of yours is not the pinnacle of civility or razorsharp reasoning either. Let's leave it at that, shall we? 78.34.138.80 (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The subject in the article has attracted a lot of media interest. It can be used as a case on Wikipedia to show that drug resistance bacteria can affect everyone. Fangfufu (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Besides passing our core notability guidelines, this is one of the only high profile people to die from this very rare bacteria infection. WP:BLP1E, besides applying to living people, was established to protect the privacy of "essentially low profile" individuals who found themselves in the news through no effort of their own.  A contestant in the Brazil "Miss World" contest is in no manner an "essentially low profile" person. --Oakshade (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is actually a very common bacterial infection. 88.234.217.196 (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Common bacterial infection, but rarely causing the death of a high profile person. --Oakshade (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll bite. What part of her life, which particular achievements justify calling her a "high profile person"? 78.34.138.80 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A Brazilian Miss World runner up who now has vast international attention. Remember, I described "high profile" to point out that WP:BLP1E clearly states it applies to "low-profile" individuals (i.e. "Cleveland man accidentally mows off own foot").  Someone who participates in a national and nationally televised beauty contest is not "low profile."--Oakshade (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll concede that point, she's not exactly the nn Cleveland man. Just wondered how you might describe the notability level of, say, John Lennon if Mariana Bridi da Costa qualifies as "high profile person". 78.34.150.177 (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - The publicity seems to be only generated because she was a beauty queen. Many people die every year from sepsis caused by Pseudomonas, many of them undoubtedly equally or more notable than a Brazilian beauty queen. Keeping this panders to the cult of celebrity and suggests that women who are judged to be attractive (usually by men) are somehow more important than those who are judged to be less attractive. This is undoubtedly why the press picked it up. Do we here in the press of ... unattractive male microbiologist dies of Pseudomonas... ? No of course we don't. Maintaining an entry for reasons of male chauvinism seems a particularly bad reason for inclusion.  Everyone, even Brazilian beauty queens, have a right to privacy and one of the most sacrosanct privacies is that between a patient and his/her physician or doctor. Unless an individual makes a public statement about their condition, then their medical history should remain private - Wikipedia is not the gutter press. So if you look at Pancreatic cancer, there are no case histories and, of those cases known and reported on Wikipedia, all have been individuals who chose to make their condition known. Similarly at Testicular cancer that are a number of recoveries listed all of which have been made public by the sufferers themselves. For a bacterial infection look at Tetanus - all the cases listed are for people who died more than 50 years ago.
 * In this particular case we have no informed consent from the sufferer, we have no corroboration of diagnosis, just the press reporting verbal comments from family members or friends. Thus we have no reliable evidence as to cause, no informed consent and no value in the recital. The issue has been raised elsewhere that this should be a warning to others but this article mentions that the condition is potentially fatal and can cause sepsis. That alone should alert the reader to the dangers inherent in this organism colonising living human tissue. Using an example like this seems to take a vicarious interest in something that would be sad but unremarkable if it happened to any one of the great majority of human-kind. Velela (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet another argument making a point that isn't relevant. Like so many others, Velela seems to have a problem with Mariana having been a "beauty queen" and bases her whole argument on that. Once again, it is completely irrelevant. What we are interested in is IF she is notable, not why she is notable. Having been covered by BBC, CNN, O Globo, Corriere della Sera, Expressen and many others, there can be no doubt about notability.JdeJ (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite the reverse. Notability as judged here is just about reporting in the more sensational news - do we have articles for such stuff as Nude father Christmas streaks through Prague!, no of course we don't but such stories are all too common in the press. This one is a great deal sadder for family and friends but the press only took notice because she was a beauty queen. If this had been you or I dying from sepsis (an all too common death) nobody would have taken a blind bit of notice. This debate is wothy of the gutter press not Wikipedia. Velela (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again you bring your personal moral standards into the discussion. We all know by now that you deplore that a "beauty queen" got so much attention. While that personal feeling of yours is understandable, it's not relevant. We don't ask why people are famous, we ask if they are famous. And are you seriously claiming that BBC, CNN and Corriere della Sera are gutter press? I'd say they are among the most respected news media in the world.JdeJ (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I bring moral standards to everything I do in life. Don't you ? I don't deplore that a beauty queen got so much attention quite the reverse. I believe that she should be afforded the same privacy and respect given to the many thousands that die in similar ways each year and that being a runner -up in beauty contest doesn't give us the right to deny her that respect and privacy. Velela (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was vague, there is nothing wrong with morals. What I meant is that my interpretation, and of course I may be wrong, is that you seem to thing that her being a beauty queen would be a reason not to include her on Wikipedia. If that's so, I'd like to point out that her profession is not important, academic, beauty queen, civil servant, dancer, electrician... What we're interested in is whether she is notable. And being covered extensively by leading news media throughout the world, including BBC, CNN and many others, implies notability.JdeJ (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I would suggest the following criteria for entry as a Wikipedia notable death: All persons must have some element of celebrity, fame or political relevance so that an announcement will be mentioned in some credible news source. I would suggest that the BBC or CNN are credible news sources. That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.227.2 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009
 * Keep. Drug resistant bacteria kills young healthy person. Come on. Why in the world should this tragic tale be deleted? It´s relevant to all of us. Sigmar Þormar, Iceland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.139.210 (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2009
 * Comment Even though I support a keep, I don't think the reason given above holds water. Unfortunately, many young persons are killed by diseases and their deaths are always tragic, but that is not a reason to have articles about them. The reason I support a keep is that her death, in contrast with the tragic deaths of most other young people, is very notable and has been covered by media around the world.JdeJ (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, and I fully agree with you on this one: her death is very notable. In this vein, one might ask why the article isn't accurately located at Illness and death of Mariana Bridi da Costa. 78.34.150.177 (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this is an area that needs a more general policy established - there are going to be deaths every week that bring people to the attention of the media more than the work they did in their life. Either a notable or unusual death plus a somewhat notable life (however we're determining either of those - say by hits on Google or the number of different news sources on either topic) together add up to a worthy subject for an article, or they do not. The preceding debate will be replayed ad infinitum unless some sort of concensus can be reached in general. I would err in this case towards a deletion, although a mention of this case on the article for sepsis might be relevant. I'm no expert on fashion, but it seems to me that people are describing her as a 'model', while the biography in the article only mentions beauty pageants. This seems less notable - surely there are lots of entrants to beauty pageants, spelling bees, quiz shows, etc, most of whom don't win, while far fewer people are selected by companies or agencies to model for them (which in itself may not justify notability). Scyrene (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep She was known across the Portuguese speaking countries, which do contribute significantly to the number of visitors of English speaking Wikipedia. 81.84.183.85 (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Say what you will, this is actually one of the most valid arguments to keep I've seen so far. 78.34.150.177 (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Portuguese Wikipedia did not have an article on Ms. Bridi before her death; now there is an article, but it has been nominated for deletion and at the moment there are more !votes in favor of deletion than for keeping the article. So much for the argument. 88.234.217.196 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another example of wikidiocy: delete someone who's death made worldwide news, but keep the death of some obscure French cleric or some Canadian Provincial politician that no one's ever heard of. You people are "reel jeen-yus-ez" .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.215.13 (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - More one example of WP:ONEEVENT. Béria Lima Msg 12:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: Overall notability. And the fact that so many is involved in this discussion point out to me that she isnt just another model. and that her death and life has been interesting for many people. Had she been a model without any beauty pageant of runway notability i might have said delete but as she has actually done good in many beauty pageants and was involved in a pageant at the time of death i guess she is more than just a WP:ONEEVENT so that doesnt apply here.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Or at least let the Brazilians decide. From what I've seen in Wikipedia, it seems like someone from a non-English-speaking country has to be ten times more famous than someone from an English-speaking one in order to be included here. At least this Mariana was a model and a somewhat famous one. That cannot be said for Cassie Bernall, for example (another one who is famous only because of her death). – Alensha   talk  19:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Who is the schmuckbag who wants to delete this article? You should crawl out of the hole you live in and come out and smell the coffee you drooling drubbling idiot. I have really started to dislike these wikipedia bureaucrats from the bottom of my heart. I propose you delete all of wikipedia and then put a bullet in that dumpster you call a brain. 119.154.61.185 (talk) 22:48, 28 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.