Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nataline Sarkisyan (2nd nomination)


 * 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   Move to Death of Nataline Sarkisyan. If there is a desire to rename or merge into Cigna please discuss on the article's talk page. J04n(talk page) 11:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Nataline Sarkisyan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not notable. There are no sources for the key information about this case. Pizzamancer (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I notice that there are a couple of dead links in the references, but have you checked the other 18 sources before you wrote that there are "no sources"? If not, what do you mean by "the key information"? --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifically - When did the claim get denied? and what/who's insurance was she covered under?  Kind of key details here.Pizzamancer (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Those sound like article improvement issues, not arguments against notability. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect. I've already discussed on the talk page why I don't see the young lady as notable. The case may be notable in the history of the company, but she was not notable as in individual. I believe WP:ONEEVENT applies here. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Now that is a deletion argument. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's merit in citing ONEEVENT here, but the case seems to be notable in and of itself, so I don't think the article should be redirected (or deleted!), but rather renamed to a title that shows the article as a case, not a biography. --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That suggestion was raised on the talk page. Again, I'd lean towards redirect to the company article and put it under the existing controversy section. Truthfully, I think the info will be found there (the Cigna article) more often than in a bio about her or about the case. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Beautiful girl, sad story but does not seem notable enough as it is. I am stuck between the above two users' ideas. I think it should be part of a general (or special) healthcare/insurance article or be presented as a "case" of shortcomings of the concerned system; but certainly not as an article on a personality. PBUH. --E4024 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete However tragic, this is a punctual news item. WP:BIO1E Alfy32 (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This was a nationally televised issue and a very hot topic during the Medical Care reform and the Presidential campaigns of 2008 in the United States. Top news media outlets such as ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN (Youtube video), Fox News, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and many more. Famed politicians, human rights activists, and etc. such as Democratic Presidential nominee John Edwards talks about Nataline Sarkisyan during his campaign, film director and political activist Michael Moore has raised awareness on his website, and it was a hot topic during the Democratic Presidential campaign (you can read about it here). Google books alone yields 150+ results. Definitely notable and significant. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned at the article talk page, counting hits or saying "it's mentioned here" isn't helpful. The standard here is not if it has been covered. The standard for a bio is if the individual has had significant coverage hereself, normally for more than one event. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete　Wikipedia is not a tabloid.Pizzamancer (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're the nominator, you don't "vote" twice like this. BTW, your nomination is completely wrong in suggesting there are "no sources" for the key facts in the case. There are many sources, the article simply needs improvements.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In fairness, I've seen some AfD's where people actually claimed that a nomination doesn't necessarily count as a delete !vote. Sounds silly to me, but it was actually asserted. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This doesn't have to do with the media and tabloids necessarily. This is concerning Medical Reform, a huge issue in America. This incident has been taken up by politicians and social activists voluntarily. This does not mean the issue was raised only for the sake of awareness. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a huge issue, but this article isn't about the issue. This article is about a single young woman. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You hit the nail on the head. The very reason this article should be deleted.  The discussion about medical reform is under medical reform.  There is one line about how her family spoke out about a senator, and that is as close to the discussion of medical reform as this article gets.Pizzamancer (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete or redirect subject falls under WP:BLP1E, the event does not pass WP:PERSISTENCE. That being said the event can be seen as relating to multiple subjects, such as Health care in the United States or Cigna HealthCare.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve: I just did some quick and dirty work on this, but the article being discussed above me is an early 2008 BLP1E-ish article. Five years later, her case is still well-known and notable for being part of the impetus of health care reform in the United States. I've fixed the lede up a bit to start to make that point too.  If we are hell bent on deletion on the current iteration, I will accept userification to me.--Milowent • hasspoken  19:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Milowent • hasspoken 15:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - outright deletion here is woefully incorrect, due to the sheer amount of news coverage, and the level of discussion about this case; I'm not sure if the article should be fully merged to Cigna, renamed to Death of Nataline Sarkisyan, or kept as-is (the latter two pending further expansion, of course). I'd probably go for the middle option if pushed to make a choice. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * move to "death of Nataline Sarkisyan" Certainly a BLP1E, but also seems there are enough sources for an event article. Hobit (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Ample media coverage. If her death did help get a law passed on the national level about health care, then its certainly notable.  Just rename it, as others have suggested, and its fine.   D r e a m Focus  07:27, 1 February 2013 (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.