Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marjorie Wantz


 * 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. I agree with Mavourneed, there are 93 names on the list of killed patients. I don't think a merge is appropriate in this instance. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Marjorie Wantz

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete: Non-notable just for being a patient of Jack Kevorkian. Already listed as such in article. Mavourneen 18:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Jack Kevorkian. Plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 18:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment &mdash; I would like to see a one-sentence summary of the patient's ailment included on the Jack Kevorkian article, to serve as an example of the reasons for euthanasia. Ditto for the other nominated JK patient articles. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Jack Kevorkian. There is a long list of patients in the article. Perhaps one or two of the better documented cases can be included in the article as examples, but not all of them! Bksimonb 18:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * People: there are 93 names on his list of patients. We cannot and definitely should not be picking and choosing, which is what the creator of these four articles (so far) did. They are all either equally notable or non-notable. We can't merge and redirect 93 names, can we??? Come on! Common sense. Mavourneen 18:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. By "merge", only information which would improve the Kevorkian article need be retained; we're not talking about the entire articles. As for redirects: they don't need any maintenance and take up a trivial amount of space, so what's the problem, given that these are plausible search terms? Redirects do not have to be notable, they just have to be plausible search terms connected to an article which does have a notable subject. Thomjakobsen 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The person is not notable. Being in the news and dying does not make you notable. MarkBul 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. This is all sourceable info on Kevorkian, and can be used to make a more readable middle section of that article (currently a list). Same goes for the other three patients listed for deletion. Thomjakobsen 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when is information invaluable? Jack Kevorkian is an extremely controversial doctor and there are people who research this. Students, psychologists, and medical professionals to name a few. The information listed in these articles will soon be nearly inattainable. These articles have no negative impact on Wikipedia whatsoever. Information, regardless of how arcane, is the basis for Wikipedia's creation. Just because many people haven't heard of something doesn't make it unimportant. Niels0827 15:24, 23 September 2007 CST.
 * Niels0827 is the creator of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this comment directed at me? I think we agree: I'm arguing that the information is valuable and that it be used to improve the Kevorkian article. "Redirect" would mean that people searching for an article on one of his patients would be led to Kevorkian's article. Thomjakobsen 20:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Niels0827, you make several arguments which have been discounted for the purpose of Wikipedia deletion policy:
 * It's useful. That may be true, but we use notability, not utility, as a guideline.
 * We could lose the information. That may be true, but we are not a repository of last resort. Please consider another venue such as a free web host.
 * It isn't hurting anything. If violates policy, it should not be kept, otherwise it undermines the effectiveness of our policies.
 * Wikipedia is about information. In a sense, true, but it is by core principles about notable information from secondary sources.
 * Topics are important whether people have heard of them or not. This may be true, but the importance must be demonstrated by independent and credible sources. There are newspaper articles on these individuals, doubtless, but they are not themselves important for more than one thing -- their association with one particular doctor.
 * Please consider how these policies apply to this article. We understand there has been good faith effort here, but that is not a reason to keep an article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


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