Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neda (Iranian protester)


 * 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. WP:SNOWBALL. Even if the video turns out to be a fake "unverifiable video by an anonymous anti-government user of a social networking site", it is undoubtedly notable -- the coverage is not limited to a few fringe publications or one day. No need to keep showing an ugly deletion notice to thousands of Wikipedia readers. utcursch | talk 02:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Neda (Iranian protester)

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

WP:ONEVENT. Óðinn (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC) DO NOT DELETE. We are posting information as quickly as we can get it and are working to verify the sources. Please do not let her deathe be in vain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.224.84 (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- She is the subject of 59 articles in Google News already because of the international attention paid to her death. Peterkiesler (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- Give these people a voice. Give this woman the voice that she gave her very life for!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.123.147 (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- I can't help but think that those who are denying the reality of this gruesome act and suggest deleting it have some despicable agenda. To those who deny this video's circumstances, I say that I have see the video that shows Neda and her father right before the shooting peacefully watching the events in front of them. The video shows the yelling and screaming and police fighting the people. It's shameful to suggest that she does not deserve to be a permanent entry in Wikipedia. She is an important part of the history of Iran struggle. Tyrion18 (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- Let's keep updating and improving information as available and verifiable? Lenny Zenith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyborgnyc (talk • contribs) 00:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- Neda has become the personification of the protest movement in Iran. This is living history.  How could anyone even consider deleting it? Tim New
 * Strong Keep -- continue to update as new information becomes available.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caulleys (talk • contribs) 00:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- and improve as information becomes available. Rabourn (talk)
 * Strong delete --unverifiable video by an anonymous anti-government user of a social networking site - hardly qualifies as a reputable source. The mainstream media coverage is all secondary to this one source. Little Professor (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 *  "Do not delete." -- She had a name, a passport and the facts of her death which have galvanized a nation and saddened the world will be verified. Document history; do not erase it." LisaHenderson06 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Do not delete. -- i believe it is very important to keep this entry. 1) this is verifiable; once media is allowed in again, her father and other witnesses can be interviewed, etc. 2) this is a very important event in a larger important event. encyclopedias document important events, deleting this entry would serve no purpose. due to the nature of Iranian traditions for mourning (3rd, 7th, and 40th day after death, info from time.com) there will probably be more events related to what happened to her. Also, her name "Neda" has become a rallying cry. We dont know what might happen 10 years from now, but there's a possibility that she will become a relatively important figure. Students writing reports over this "green revolution" may want to refer to information about her. Do not delete this entry. 17:40, 21 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.19.125 (talk)


 * comment - "Neda" is a likely search term. How about merging the content to 2009 Iranian election protests and preserving some useful redirect? Tom Harrison Talk 17:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably, the best solution. Óðinn (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. I'm stuck in two minds about this... on one hand, it is a BRDP1E, however, it is quickly becoming symbolic of the election protests... I'd edge towards a weak keep, however, I would not be adverse to a merge to 2009 Iranian election protests. Sceptre (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for a couple of reasons. First, considering the topic, it will simply be recreated again regardless (then deleted, then recreated, etc...). More importantly though, this is part of a larger event. What's occurring in Iran right now is very likely going to turn into a revolution... or, it won't. Regardless, right now it's simply too soon to make any rational decisions. Even if "Neda" is only in the spot light for a very short period of time though, it is a notable event. Regarding merging with the Iranian protests page, that is a really bad idea. That page is going to need break-outs really soon now as it is, so adding more material to it is the wrong way to go. — Ω (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- The information is verifiable, and the story is notable, so deleting it would be detrimental from an encyclopedic standpoint. I don't know if it does warrant its own article though, so a possible merge with either the article on the protests or a spinoff article would make sense, but that's an editorial discussion, not a deletion discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside... I don't know how many of the people here have seen the video of her death. If you haven't, its... haunting. Its something thats going to stay with me for a long long time. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the Iranian protests page is already over 110k. A merge there is a very bad idea, and I can't imagine anywhere else that it could be merged into. Believe me, I thought about it immediately after the page's creation when I stub-sorted it... — Ω (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ps.: I requested for a semi-protect for this page a couple of hours ago. It really does need it to prevent IP edit warring and vandalism. — Ω (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but not averse to a merge. Basically, I concur with Sceptre. She's drawn a lot of media and public attention, which I think merits mention in the 2009 Iranian election protests at the least. The question is how temporary or long-lasting her death will be in the public eye. If the attention fades dramatically within a few days, then merge would be best. If she continues to be a rallying point (internationally and/or inside Iran) for a longer period, then a separate article would be appropriate. But I'd lean toward keeping it (rather than going back and forth) to see which way it develops. --JamesAM (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not hugely opposed to a merge, but I do think we should be careful not to treat non-Western events considerably differently from western events. For example, I could see the same argument for merging the four deaths in the Kent State shootings into the main article, instead of having separate articles for Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, William Knox Schroeder, and Sandra Scheuer. Wikipedia can't be 100% consistent on every subject, of course, but I think we should make some effort to avoid regional imbalances. --Delirium (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, has become a phenomena, with even the national Dutch condolence register having opened a register for "Neda Soltani, died 20 June 2009" --86.93.230.182 (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - she is not the first and, sadly, probably not the last casualty, whose death was recorded. The only thing that sets her death apart from deaths of other protesters is the resulting media frenzy. Let us not fall victims to that. Perhaps the situation may become as iconic as that of the Tank Man, but this falls into the realm of WP:SPECULATION. Óðinn (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an iconic victim who will come to be the visual symbol of this event, much like the aforementioned images of the Tank Man. To delete this entry would be simply foolish. Hishighness420 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep important symbolic figure. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep subject has reached iconic status after viral coverage and coverage by traditional media. -- Alternativity (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold - Iran is in the midst of a press blackout, we have no means of ascertaining reliable facts as per normal Wikipedia standard. I believe we'll have better grounds to discuss this in a week or so, once the fires die down. --88.192.229.39 (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment above posted by me --Agamemnon2 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, this girl has become a voice of this movement and the world wants to know more about her. She needs her own page. She is effectively, as another user noted, the Tank Man of this uprising in Iran. Leonffs (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, This is a big story and there will be continuing interest in this girl - it's obvious. A merge is underestimating the size of this story, even if it doesn't continue to grow her face and name are already being used as symbols by protestors around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.145.133.114 (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, simply because the trajectory of events in Iran suggests that Neda will become more, not less, of an important symbolic figure. Should the Green Revolution fail, we may want to revisit that, but should they succeed, she will certainly merit her own entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfeek (talk • contribs) 2009-06-21 18:26:32
 * Keep, As per talk above, this girl is an important factor in this protest. Also the fact that news coverage have referenced her time and time again. Knowledgekid87 16:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, it has become one of the central pillars of the Iranian movement. It explains the brutality of the militia force in Iran in a way which simply no word can do. If there is a concern about the name "Neda", change it to "Neda Soltani". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolgharni (talk • contribs) 19:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. She is only notable (and we're stretching even that word) for WP:ONEEVENT, and her death and name can never be legitimately confirmed. Bsimmons666  (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds exactly like the Unknown Rebel, KEEP. -Lapinmies 20:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur, Strong keep. Flex Flint (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, for now at least. At present she is extremely notable.  Determining whether she will continue to be so is pointless.  If it turns out that her name is wrong, the article can be moved.  If she proves to not be as pivotal to this movement as she currently appears to be, then the page can be deleted.  Wikipedia should be providing verifiable information about what people are trying to find out about.  Right now, Neda is extremely notable and significant and people are coming here to look her up.  --Aranae (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; this tragic event established its notability almost within minutes of its occurrence; it's all over the world media. As it stands, she is notable as a person slain during the protests; if she later is subsumed into a larger historical event, we can always move the content then. Antandrus  (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep She is the Crispus Attucks of the current demonstrations. She will long be remembered and her name invoked by the Iranian protesters.Dogru144 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This young women deserves to be remembered and deserves for her story to be told, this should be edited to a complete article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.87.168 (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely Keep - Wikipedia's standard response is to recommend articles for deletion far too easily, which is sad. The is report today as national news in Britain - definitely do not delete.  I can only imagine this recommendation for delete was posted too early - otherwise I cannot see the logic of it.  --Robinson weijman (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, people will want to know who and why they are hearing Neda on tv, twitter, and other media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.3.238 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-21 20:55:11
 * Keep, but probably more appropriate to merge into the protest article. She is indeed becoming a symbol of the struggle. 128.42.162.96 (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, high-profile deaths in political controversies, where commented on significantly by multiple reliable sources, are a generally recognized exception to ONEEVENT. See: Benno Ohnesorg, Jeffrey Miller, etc. --Delirium (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is notable... in the context of the event, which is on-going and unlikely to resolve quickly. Nephron T|C 21:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, it is notable, high profile and well referenced. Knowitall (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete* - The alleged video was posted by an anonymous anti-government Twitter user, the video itself is showing neither the location nor the shooter and can not be verified independently. It does not meet the Wikipedia quality requirements as it can't even be told if the video is fake or not, or when or where it was filmed, who it shows and who shot the alleged victim. Wikipedia is and should stay a non-politic platform and not be abused by anti- or pro-government-agitators. Either reduce the Wikipedia entry to the mere facts that can be shown in the video (Unnamed woman with the alleged name of "Neda" dying by unknown wound allegedly afflicted by unknown shooter), or delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.223.237 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-21 22:27:39
 * Comment - Neda is notable not as somebody who was shot, but as a meme and a rallying point for the protesters. Restricting the article to the facts of the video, and ignoring everything that came (and was published in credible sources) after, would make the page useless.  --HBK|Talk 22:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, there's at least two videos, not one. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep there is already talk in newspapers all over the world (i.e. Time, Spiegel) that the short film of her death could change history- therefore snowball keep! --noclador (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete* - Definitely delete it for now. Neda is certainly notable and worthy of entry, but information regarding her is altogether far too speculative at this point to meet wikipedia's standards. Later, when there is some certainty as to details, the article can be added again. If it is to stay, then her speculative last name and any details other than the impact of the video should be omitted.--24.18.104.25 (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The criminal Iranian government is doing enough to censor the voice of people who just want their vote be counted. No need some Wikipedians to cooperate with the Iran regime to shut down the voice of this people. Neda is the symbol and voice of Iranian people. This voice should be heard by all the world--Where is my vote? (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Information is somewhat speculative at this time, but new information will surface and this page can be edited at that time. The topic matter seems too important to simply throw away. In the mean time, a note about the more uncertain facts should be helpful. That is, be honest about the strength of the information, but let people make up their own minds. Mundhenk (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Aside from the snowball effect of this story, the video itself (and there are two) show the same thing, in addition there is one showing the man in the striped shirt with her before hand and you can here her name said in the video of her death. Due to the iconic nature of the information compared to all who have been injured or killed, it should be kept and updated as new information becomes available.(SSJPabs (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Keep. As the guideline states, ¨as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.¨ She certainly has met this. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep.If the Unknown Rebel can have his own page, then Neda deserves her own page.--Lan Di (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Notable and high profile event. The name and the image already has special significance in and outside Iran and might well become the historical iconic 'Tank Man' that comes from the mess over there. Just a reminder, we never did learn his name. Rooker75 (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Sourceless yet still very significant. Binarypower (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per nom Bigglovetalk 00:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Yug (talk)  00:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, for the same reasons we have an article on Phan Thị Kim Phúc. We can determine later whether it will keep a similarly iconic status, but in the meantime this is a subject people are likely to want to know more about (to the extent there is more to be known). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Will be recreated, and doesn't fail ONETIME due to her being a rally cry right now for the continuance of the protests. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Revise later as necessary.JimC1946 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's all covered above. Shadowjams (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This can be a turning point in the Iranian and possibly middle east history and as she is turned to a symbol of cruelty of the Iranian government as well as a public figure in Iran, there should definitely be an entry for her. Of course, the page can be revised to always show the accurate content. Verification of the facts is not an issue in the long run, and is not a good alibi for deleting the entry altogether.--Persiboy (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep She is a huge symbol of the current conflict and is notable enough to deserve her own page. --Cajolery (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I count about 40 keeps and only a few deletes. Can we remove the deletion tag? 00:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Maybe merge later, depending on how iconic she is. -- Avenue (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep  Site thief  ~talk to me~ 00:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep She is a huge symbol of the current conflict and is notable enough to deserve her own page. --NuLL3rr0r (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Strong Keep She's in a similar position as Tank Man and I would say that no one has ever come up with a confirmation as to his identity either. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.232.238.182 (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep According to WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Neda has been covered by Time, CNN, the BBC, Al Jazeera, and quite a lot of the foreign press. Even in the absence of further biographical information, I think this article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and should remain unmerged for the time being. -emk ✆ 01:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * snowball keep - due to the impact of the video and the alleged identity, she will merit an entry under the name of 'Neda' even if the original information proves to be correct, or the video proves to be a hoax. My impression following the coverage is that there *have* been multiple claims of identification of her and especially her philosophy professor.  As the information is developing and the article does not meet the criteria for a hasty delete, there seems little point in discussing whether to delete or merge the information mere hours after her burial.  69.49.44.11 (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep'The face of Neda is etched into my mind and anyone who watched the video forever. If there are inaccuracies in her bio they can be corrected in the coming days.  Her face has become the face of freedom and the price it takes to achieve freedom.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.168.47.25 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - There seems to be some evidence of the subject's notability. Right now it is a current event, with new information to emerge, and it will be difficult to decide at the very moment, whether the subject will warrant it's own article or not.  So I propose for now it be kept on the basis of WP:NOT, and that we review in 15 to 30 days, to decide if delete or merge is warranted. --Mysidia (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Meets WP:N. At the moment this is the number one searched for page on Wikipedia.-- Gordonrox24 ''' &#124; Talk 01:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now per Mysidia. As with many deletions based on WP:NOTNEWS, it's too soon to tell. cab (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Have you no heart? JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Please be civil. There are/were valid concerns over how verifiable this information is.  That was even more true at the time this article was first nominated for deletion.  A vote for deletion is by no means an attempt to belittle a person, life, or movement.  That said, it may be time to accelerate the process of closing this nomination.  I think there is a very clear consensus for keep - even if one were to only look at the discussion by experienced editors.   --Aranae (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting a snowball keep at this point--- if any admin agrees, please close the discussion now. Shii (tock) 02:00, 22 June 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.