Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milivi Adams


 * 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 to Vieques. (non-admin closure) -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  07:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Milivi Adams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is rather poorly written, subjective in tone and speculative at several points. It cites three sources: a blog post, a blog post that's been deleted, and Pagina Digital, which may or may not be a reliable source.

A merge to Vieques may be appropriate but I find a lack of credible independent sources supporting the notability of this subject.. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: You beat me to it Guy. I admit it's possible that this poor girl's death just didn't get much coverage in the Anglosphere... but her name ought to turn something significant. Lexis Advance turns zero hits for "Milivi Adams". WP:SET suggests no: Googling "Milivi Adams" gives 126 hits, and that includes Wikipedia mirrors and related projects. It's possible there's something hiding in there, but I doubt it. Even so, I paged through Google's search results for the term. There aren't even all that many non-English sources (and the English ones are universally bogus, unreliable, and/or trivial mentions). Nah. This isn't even plausible as a redirect. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Maybe merge. To Vieques. Antonio El Menudo Martin'' (Aqui) 13:40, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: A book search throws up a few mentions ;, . There may be more hits found if searching for Spanish sources. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't access either of those through any databases I have access to. The third Google Books hit is a print edition of Wikipedia. As to whether Spanish-language sources would be any different... I doubt we're going to find anything on the web or on Google Books. Unless there's a different spelling of "Milivi Adams" in Spanish, I think we're seeing everything that's been digitized. I suppose there could be something offline that's not available. If so I can't find it. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a bitterly sad case, both for the child and for her family, and there cannot be a single contributor to this debate who does not wish that Milivi's life had turned out differently. However, her life and tragic death do not make her notable. The passing of any human is a loss to us all, and the fact that she was so young makes this loss all the deeper. But she is not alone in the manner of her passing, nor was she the youngest: every day many, many children die. We cannot, and should not, commemorate them all: it is not our purpose, and it would be presumptuous of us to try.
 * Unfortunately, there is an additional tragedy here: after her death, Milivi's sufferings were used in a political campaign. The merits of that campaign do not concern us here; if that campaign was notable, it will in time be encompassed by our work here. By this campaign Milivi and the cancer that afflicted her became nothing more than a token, a pawn in someone else's fight. She became a picture on a poster, a line in a blog, and a tool in someone else's hands. Her article here is simply that: a tool in a fight that Milivi herself knew not at all.
 * It is our job to document political campaigns and images in all their forms, but we present them without bias and without getting involved ourselves. When we cover them we focus on their content, but not on the personal lives of those featured, however sad. We cover The War of Jennifer's Ear, but we do not have an article about Jennifer; we have an article on the heart-rending Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath, but we do not have an article on Tomoko herself. It is our clear precedent that we do not cover the subjects of political campaigns and images simply for being the subject, however sad their story. Including an article on Milivi is against our precedent, and has the regrettable effect, by giving her inappropriate prominence, of biasing our coverage of the campaign in which she featured. Finally, I can only imagine what it must be like for Milivi's parents and surviving family. To lose a child is bad, but to find that she has been transformed into a token to be haggled over, instead of the child she was or the girl she would have become, must be a painful experience. The political campaign whose posters appeared on street-corners may or may not still be going on, but it is time to leave one girl's tragic death out of it.
 * Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge. Keep. I've added four references to independent sources, making a total of five. I believe that this qualifies under the notability (people) guidelines per "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Please see comment below. Philg88 ♦talk 17:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw a number of these when I did my initial search. Most of these are mere name drops (such as the Workers World Party blog post), and at least one is clearly based on Wikipedia. The El Vocero article might just be an obit. The Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases page is nothing but a request for donations... I don't think that's anything significant. I admit the Civil Disobedience book might be something, but I can't verify it myself. I don't think that makes for notability under WP:BASIC, and further does not even address the WP:1E concerns voiced by Ca2james below. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, . Yes, I agree the referencing is thin, which is why I went for the multiple source argument. I think the answer here is to merge some of the content into United States Navy in Vieques, Puerto Rico, where Milivi Adams is already mentioned in passing. The book reference and possibly a couple of the others should be used for a new paragraph summarizing the exisiting article. Philg88 ♦talk 03:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: or possibly merge. Even though there are references available, the subject of the article is notable not for her life and death but for the way her death is being used by others. At most, this is a WP:BLP1E situation, and so a separate article on her life and death is not warranted. The material in the article would be better added to this article on the US navy in Vieques somewhere. --Ca2james (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Ca2james. Sad but does not meet WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2014 (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.