Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neda Agha-Soltan


 * 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 Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. There's a clear consensus that this and Death of Neda Agha-Soltan should be merged. However, as the death article is not included within the scope of this AfD, discussion regarding where/how to merge should take place at the article's talk page, preferably. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Neda Agha-Soltan
Neda (Iranian protester)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Simple case of WP:BIO1E. Her death is obviously notable (I'm not challenging that point whatsoever) for symbolic and memetic reasons, but that is already covered in Death of Neda Agha-Soltan; there is no indication of biographical notability preceding that event. Furthermore, Death of Neda Agha-Soltan already contains sufficient biographical context, so there isn't really anything that can be merged from Neda Agha-Soltan without bloating Death of Neda Agha-Soltan or allowing it to digress away from its genuinely notable features. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge back all valuable content (i.e. Persian name, year of birth, ...) to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. Then redirect. Mushroom (Talk) 08:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan, just as we have articles on other highly significant BIO1E's such as Emmett Till, Rodney King and Rosa Parks. Abecedare (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Like Soltan, Till did not survive his one event. There does not appear to be a separate article devoted to the event (the word "murdered" is linked in Till's article, but it is a rather patronizing, direct link to the murder article itself), so Emmett Till should probably just be renamed to Murder of Emmett Till or, as with Soltan, Death of Emmett Till. In very sharp contrast, Parks survived her most famous event, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, by almost precisely half a century--long enough to make plenty of additional headlines. I think it is safe to say that, by the time she started taking on the hip hop industry, she had outlived WP:BIO1E by a reasonable margin. King, finally, is more ambiguous. The fact that he is still alive means both A) that he has had additional occasions to make the news, and B) that WP:BLP applies, and WP:BLP1E is worded even more strongly than WP:BIO1E, so there may be a case at least to deemphasize less prominent aspects of his life. So, out of the examples you provided, Till would seem to be the best comparison to Soltan; and, just as it could make sense to rename Till's ostensible biography to something like Death of Emmett Till, given that such an article does not separately exist, it seems reasonable to delete Soltan's ostensible biography, given that Death of Neda Agha-Soltan not only exists, but also cannot (for obvious reasons) be updated with biographical information postdating the event. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can agree with you on Rosa Parks, but by your argument shouldn't Rodney King and Howard Brennan be renamed since a "biographical" article ends up emphasizing one aspect of their life ? Note that both of them are specifically mentioned in the BIO1E guideline.
 * According to the guideline, a "biographical" article is justified when (1) the event is significant (i.e., not merely notable) and (2) the person's involvement in the event in significant. In fact the guideline even says that if the event is very significant, (2) does not matter; however in Neda's case (unlike the Rodney King and Brennan examples) both conditions are easily met.
 * Leaving the wording of the current guideline aside, the spirit of the rule is that we should not create biographical articles on non-notable persons just because they are part of a few news stories, and hence end up placing them in the public life and defining them by a single event. There is no such risk in Neda's case, given that she has been on the front page of newspapers and at the head of newscasts on at least three continents that I have checked. I would argue that her teacher, Hamid Panahi, on the other hand should remain a redlink, because of the spirit of the rule, even though he may be as notable as Howard Brennan, by the wording of the guideline itself. Abecedare (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not really sure about the Brennan article, although it seems short enough that it could be merged, at least in large part, into John F. Kennedy assassination. My initial inclination on the King article would be to rename as per WP:BLP1E; I'd have to think about it some more. As for Soltan, even though her involvement was (or was made to be) significant, it was also minimal: She was there, and then she was...well, not. In fact, the whole theme of this event is just how non-biographical (i.e., how random) it is: She wasn't very political, she wasn't an activist, she didn't (if I recall correctly) support a particular candidate, she didn't provoke anybody to do anything. She just happened to feel like going to the protest, and that happened to be a bad idea. I can understand the psychological need to personify impersonal events or to put disorganized phenomena into narrative contexts. But all of this is being done without her knowledge, without her approval, without her input, and--because her death was so utterly unconnected to her life--without indications of what her knowledge, her input, or her approval might have looked like. I hope I'm not going too far out on a limb by suggesting that we say what needs to be said about the event, while otherwise letting the poor gal rest in peace. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) vaguely worded Merge !votes quite naturally equate to "Keeps." (2) Therefore, if participants wish to make "Delete" !votes, they must specify Merge to "Death of...," which, of course, do convincingly equate to "Deletes." (Whereas !votes of Merge from "Death of...," of course, equate to "Keeps.") ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  09:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the two articles, as per Abecedare's comment above (update: and put that article under the name Neda Agha-Soltan). Even though she is certainly a case of a person who meets the BIO1E criteria, she has clearly already become an iconic figure, and as such merits a single article in the same way as Rosa Parks or Rodney King. -- The Anome (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: She has indeed become an iconic figure--for sociological, political, and psychological reasons. Biographically, however, she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Apparently, she was not even very political; "she was never an activist" --although she was "stubborn" and musical, and decided to accompany her music teacher to the protest. Not only does her biography fail to shed much light on her iconic status, but it could even undermine that status. Her age, her gender, and other circumstances played a role, but these circumstances are nothing that Death of Neda Agha-Soltan does not or cannot cover on its own. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Comment: One can argue that Rodney King became an iconic figure for the exact same reason - he was at the wrong place at the wrong time; he did not set out to be beaten up. And his article is under his name.  I agree with The Anome:  Merge under Neda Agha-Soltan.  It will also be easier for users to search. --Sneems (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the two articles, as per Abecedare's comment above. It makes little sense to have an article about the death. The Anome is totally right. -- Fgiusfredi 11:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC+2)
 * Comment: I have responded to both of the editors whom you mention. Please consider these responses and see if my invocation of WP:BIO1E makes more sense in light of them. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, not certain why this was ever created, all the info here can be fit into the Biography section of the article on her death. Something needs to be done about the constant bickering over a proper title for the article. It's either just her name, as is the case with many articles about people who are notable due to their deaths during conflict, or it's "Death of...", which there are also cases of. -- AniRaptor2001 09:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Abecedare, keep the name Neda Agha-Soltan and delete the other article. csloat (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A point of order (of which I'm sure most of you are aware):
 * I subsequently re-edited the above, which formula I'd somehow written in reverse of the way I'd thought I'd done. ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  12:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting interpretation- I see it as the other way around. If this is merged to the death of... article, it will no longer be an article in its own right. That sounds more like a delete to a keep than me. If the content is merged from the death of... article, this one will remain, meaning it is more of a keep vote. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, J Milburn, I f*kt up my formulation. Thanks, I changed it. ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  12:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're both wrong. Merger, of any sort, is not a delete outcome, as the Guide to deletion has explained for several years.  The use of the administrator deletion tool is not a part of any stage of the article merger process.  Merger, of any form, and to any target, and of any extent (even down to no content being transferred at all when it is wholly a duplication), is a variant of keeping.  The rest is a use of the ordinary editing tool, that every editor, even those without accounts, posesses.  Articles for deletion is, as the name says, about deletion.  It's the exercise of the deletion tool by an administrator who has that tool, and the applicability of Deletion policy, that is the focus here.  Uncle G (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge any content back, then redirect. (There is no such thing as "merge and delete"). However, do not merge the images, as they are not required. J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Many of you probably know this, but as a couple people have pointed out here (and as I have had a surprisingly difficult time explaining in previous AfDs), "merge and delete" is not an option (because deletion would disrupt the "paper trail" that needs to be kept intact following a merge). If by "merge and delete" someome means, in effect, "merge X into Y, and then clear X of its contents and replace those contents with a an automatic redirect to Y", then one is not indicating WP:DELETION at all, but rather a standard WP:MERGE. I worded my nomination so as to suggest why I feel that deletion is preferable to merging. Of course, anyone is welcome to disagree, and to suggest that merging (or something else) is preferable to deletion; but those who are inclined to use the words "merge" and "delete" in the same !vote are advised to avoid making the erroneous implication that WP:MERGE and WP:DELETE can be applied simultaneously to a given article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as per discussion. I am agnostic about which article should be the main one. (Edit: If it helps the closing admin, I can go with keep per discussion instead, although merging this article into the Death article is also fine by me.) Also, unless the histories of the articles are merged, a merge and delete is legally impossible -- when we merge any content, we must also ensure that the history of the content is maintained. ("Merge to" and "merge from" are indistinguishable, really -- they're two sides of the same coin.) Johnleemk | Talk 10:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I see no reason why Neda Agha-Soltan can't just be a redirect -- there's no need for an AfD it seems, since we seem agreed that content in both articles is worth preserving. We're really just debating whether the two articles should exist separately, or if one should redirect to the other. I don't see any case for deleting the page itself -- it would function perfectly fine as a redirect, surely? Johnleemk | Talk 10:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: A merge-redirect (through which Neda Agha-Soltan is incorporated into Death of Neda Agha-Soltan--not vice versa) does not strike me as entirely unreasonable, but it does come across as unnecessary, insofar as Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan already puts the event into sufficient context. I worry that a merge could be a slippery slope to bloating that section out of proportion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we should be careful to not merge anything that isn't needed, and remove anything that is merged when not required. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. The woman was notable for her death, not for her earlier life. Clear case of WP:ONEVENT. WWGB (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan I do not see a precedence for entitling it anything other than her name. The Kent State protesters shot by US national guardsmen are just under their names (not death of). For example Jeffrey_Miller. Rabourn (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect under Neda Agha-Soltan is the obvious course of action. Jack1956 (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the two articles (Death of Neda Agha-Soltan and Neda Agha-Soltan) to one article entitled Neda Agha-Soltan, then redirect the other. ExRat (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect under Neda Agha-Soltan. Ac1201 (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * merge (the relevant info) - Bio can't stand by itself, since she's notable just for her death. --Damiens .rf 13:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Everyone becomes notable for something. This is a very reasonable separation of the person when they were alive and the events surrounding their death. There are hundreds of martyrs who have articles both about themselves and separate articles about their death. Neda is clearly one who deserves both articles. 2ndAmendment (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - and merge the other article into this one. This obviously deserves an article, and it is only by arcane Wikipedia formality that the article would be entitled "death of..." rather than simply her name.  Although there are indeed valid reasons for BIO1E, it is standing on formality in this case to suggest that we focus an article on her death rather than her (as a person, a symbol, a personality who galvanized events).  We are building an encyclopedia, not a rule book, and casting this as a "death of article" makes us look kind of kooky.  And keep the fair use images too.  Again, we are becoming so rule bound it ceases to be encyclopedic and becomes kind of nuts.  Wikidemon (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in those unsourced quotes, too. Who needs references? They just get in the way of writing what we know is true. And I'm sick of this "NPOV" stuff- why can't we just say what's obviously right? J Milburn (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per WWGB above. Fin©™ 14:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. As I'm an anonymous IP editor I don't feel I have the right to indicate a preference as a "vote", however I have a few comments. First, I am in agreement with both 2ndAmendment and Wikidemon that there's no reason for this to be called "death of." People are using the ONEEVENT rule to suggest a biographical article isn't justfied. Well Lee Harvey Oswald is known for one event, too, as is Jack Ruby. Second, no one is going to use "Death of XYZ" as a search parameter. They'll look for the name and it's a needless redirect or click-path. Thirdly, the woman's life story is now receiving worldwide media coverage, and last I looked people who receive worldwide coverage of this nature are eligible for biographical articles, whether they are known for one event or events over the course of many years. Someone cites Rodney King as an example, and it's a good one, because on the surface his main notoriety was the video of his beating, however this event sparked many later events, most notably the LA Riots. Time will tell with regards to Agha-Soltan's death in terms of long-term impact. But in the short-term it's having a huge impact and one of the reasons for Wikipedia even existing is to provide documentation of events in a shorter time frame than you might expect to see Brittanica accomplish. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with anonymous. I think Agha-Soltan's life and death have been sufficiently covered by the international media that the article (as I voted above) should be merged into one article entitled Neda Agha-Soltan. She may have initially been simply a WP:ONEVENT individual, but when the international media started to scrutinize every tidbit and detail of her life and when the oppositional leaders, United States President and other notable international individuals begin invoking her name (for good or bad), she has become more than just a "Death of...", or "One event" individual. When Iranian government authorities directed Agha-Soltan's family to remove the black mourning banners that were hanging outside their residence to prevent the home from becoming a place of pilgrimage, when Mehdi Karroubi and Mir-Hossein Mousavi called upon Iranian citizens to commemorate Agha-Soltan in protest - then she has already become someone who is notable for more than just "one event". She may have become notable in death, but her death has already left a legacy that is worthy of a page simply titled Neda Agha-Soltan. ExRat (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Neda Agha-Soltan and Merge Death of Neda Agha-Soltan to Neda Agha-Soltan per User:Wikidemon. Salih  ( talk ) 15:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge- This is the sort of information that should not under any circumstances be lost on wikipedia. Her death is still resonating, and, while already notable, the full extent of the notability has yet to make itself known, and likely won't for some time to come. Personally, I think the article should be listed under her death, making the focus the event, not the woman. However I'm willing to bow to consensus if it is to keep the article titled after her. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan - The name will be a lasting piece of history referred to more (and for more) than the single event of her death. It is the death that caused her fame but her fame will easily outlive her death and become a focus for a generation. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the two articles. Wjfox2005 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, and redirect namespace to 'Death of ...' article. There appears to be nothing worth keeping in the article which is not already in the 'Death' article. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge as a BRDP1E. Sceptre (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge now! Details of Neda's life are of interest due to her shooting death in the context of Iranian unrest after a stolen election.  These are the essentials about Neda and they all belong together in *one* article.  juandresh  18:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep and merge. The resulting redirect from Neda Agha-Soltan will be a reader service. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep both articles&mdash;she's a notable person, her death is particularly notable, and there is enough content and available information for two separate articles. Everyking (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge the "Death of..." article into this one. Priyanath talk 16:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no need for an encyclopedic entry for Soltani specifically.  She would fail BLP1E.  However, her death is/was an important event.  And, nothing in this article which is needed isn't already in the Death of... article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. You mean like her age and name translated into Persian? ExRat (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, someone copy/paste the translation and her birth/death information to the Death of Article, and let's be done with it. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Step one: Is Neda's life story notable, yes? or no? If yes, then move on to step two."[...T]here is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. [...] Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial . It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles.--- WP:FAN"Step two: Would breaking the biography and the event into separate articles serve Wikipedia's purposes in this instance, yes or no? If yes, then keep."The key to avoiding information overload is to break an article down into more than one page [...]. These can start out as section headings and be broken out into separate pages as the main article becomes too long. [...]Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base of any and all information, full of railroad timetables and comprehensive lists. But any encyclopedic subject of interest should be covered, in whatever depth is possible .--- META:WIKI IS NOT PAPER#ORGANIZATION"That is, to make sure our readers' eyes don't glaze over with coverage of peripheral detail extraneous to the precise topic being covered within an article, we break out extensive coverage being given some related matter or issue into separate articles, being sure to include only the pertinent details therefrom into that article's parent.
 * Keep. We have many articles for people known for nothing other than the circumstances of their deaths. One might think of Kitty Genovese, but Crispus Attucks is probably the closest analogue, and the Boston Massacre would correspond to the current protest movement.  From that example, the Death of ___ article should probably be merged into an article covering the killings of election protesters, and/or its Neda-specific content brought here.  The Monster (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into the article about the notable event (her death.) I am not impressed by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. There are undoubtedly numerous other memorial articles or articles about someone known only for stopping a bullet or otherwise being a victim of circumstances which should be moved to "Death of..." titles. Her death has been chosen and promoted as a symbol of the popular uprising. She was apparently just standing in the wrong place at the wrong time and caught a random bullet. Per WP:BLP1E and per WP:NOT a biography or memorial article is not appropriate. Her life was cut short, before she had any opportunity to have a  career or otherwise do something to satisfy WP:BIO. She is notable only for unintentionally stopping a bullet and someone being around with a camera phone to record the aftermath. Edison (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep.

Conclusion: Since I believe Neda is herself notable, along with the event of her shooting, and since I further believe that too exensive of details about her shooting wouldn't optimally fit in her specific Wikipedia biography and that too extensive of details about her biography wouldn't optimally fit in an article about her shooting, I therefore believe that this article should be saved. ↜Just  M &thinsp;E  here&#8202;,&#8202;now  19:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per, Wikidemon, "we are becoming so rule bound it ceases to be encyclopedic and becomes kind of nuts" couldn't agree more, seem like in many instances that this is place getting overly bureaucratic. Also it does not matter that she became unintentionally famous or a victim, her death has made her notable. People will want to know about her life, thoughts. Contrast this with say Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination, how famous was/is he. People will know of Neda for years to come and want to know about her.   Pahari Sahib  19:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Death of Neda Agha-Soltan, per WWGB. --Ragib (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Notability is clear and growing. BLP1E doesn't apply since she isn't living. Moreover, the extreme amount of coverage makes her an excepetion to BLP1E even if she were still alive (as say Rosa Parks). Finally, removing, merging or redirecting would increase already serious problems of systemic bias in coverage. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean the systematic bias in favour of content that is important- the details surrounding her death? Also note that the guidelines for people notable for one event are not linked to living people only. J Milburn (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is clear. Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan. --Kaaveh (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. She is now the face of the 2009 Iranian election protests. Dems on the move (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Merge to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. No need for two separate articles, and unfortunately she is more notable for her death than for her life. Dems on the move (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge Death of Neda Agha-Soltan into this article
 * Keep. Notability is clear. Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan. We have several articles like this. For example, Kimveer Gill, he is notable only for one incident which is Dawson College shooting in Montreal, Canada.--Where is my vote? (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan. The article Death of Neda Agha-Soltan should have remained in its original spot instead of being moved.  I don't see the point of creating overly long Wikipedia article names and then justifying the names by saying that's the only importance.  Also, I don't believe that there is so much information associated with Neda that two articles are needed. billebrooks (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge Death of Neda Agha-Soltan into Neda Agha-Soltan. Retaining separate articles is not an issue of notability (or respect or anything of that sort), it is one of length.  When the main article gets overly long a new article will need to be branched off of it.  At present Neda, the circumstances surrounding her death, and the national and international response to that death are all intertwined. Any of these could be later separated into a distinct article if they become large enough.  I submit Rosa Parks as an example of where the famous action is a subheading of an individual.  Refusing to give up her seat is covered in more detail at Rosa Parks than at Montgomery Bus Boycott.  Likewise with Tank Man - there is not article called "Tank Man's refusal to give way to tanks".  The famous action is better subsumed under the article on the notable actor.  --Aranae (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (merge death into her bio) - "Neda Agha-Soltan ... has become an international symbol of courage in defense of human rights but is less-well known [in Iran]." - The Washington Times; an "international symbol" of anything sounds pretty notable... Strikehold (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment further to my !vote above. The !votes in this debate are all over the place. There is only one apparent consensus, is that there should only be one article, but editors cannot seem to agree amongst themselves which will be the article and which the redirect. However, it appears abundantly clear to me that she has had little to offer (because her life has been tragically cut short) except on her death, which was filmed and which has now made her an icon. My contention, therefore, is that he death was the notable event, and not her personally. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rodney King, Rosa Parks, Emmett Till, JonBenét Ramsey, Tank Man, Laci Peterson, etc. are all examples where the events are subsumed into the articles about the individuals. Rosa Parks had a considerably encyclopedic life outside of her most noteworthy event, but the rest of these individuals are renown primarily for a single event.  I can't find examples of the reverse being true.  Merging to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan will be setting a precedent from what I can see.  In addition to that, the entire merged article will be about Neda Agha-Soltan.  "Death of Neda Agha-Soltan", does not adequately describe the merged article because some of the article will be about her life.  I think the attempt to move to "Death of Neda Agha-Soltan" may represent overcompensating for the need to be objective in light of an emotional situation.  (In contrast, I think use of her surname in the article is an appropriate attempt at objectivity).  --Aranae (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge the "The Death of..." article to this one. For point of reference, here are other similar articles on Wikipedia; some have been mentioned here before, but except for the first one I've mostly tried to keep to ones that I discovered independently to avoid bias:


 * Rodney King -- very long article, basically entirely about the beatings and aftermath; there doesn't seem to be a separate page for the incident proper
 * Emmett Till -- long article about his murder; there doesn't seem to be a separate page for the incident proper
 * Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, William Knox Schroeder, Sandra Lee Scheuer -- in addition to the article about the Kent State shootings, all four deaths have their own bio page
 * I see no individual pages for the Columbine massacre victims; at least one name (Daniel Mauser) redirects to the Columbine High School massacre page
 * The victims of Lizzie Borden's alleged crimes do not have individual pages, but redirect to hers; her page is devoted almost entirely to the murders of which she was accused
 * Brian Douglas Wells -- (the pizza delivery neck bomb guy) has his bio page devoted to the bombing incident; there doesn't seem to be a page for the incident apart from that
 * Abigail Taylor -- has her bio page devoted to the incident that got her in the news (poor girl)
 * Sharon Lopatka -- has her bio page devoted to the incident that got her in the news
 * Okay, at this point I'm just looking through the List of unusual deaths. If you keep looking you'll see that the events listed that (1) have a single victim (as opposed to, e.g., the Boston Molasses Disaster), (2) have an article devoted to it (e.g. the person falls under BIO1E and so there isn't really anything else on their bio page), and (3) have subjects that would fit the BIO1E guideline (at least by the other stuff in the wikipedia article) almost always have the description of those events under the person's name, not an article about the event. Looking at events after 1980 say (earlier ones tend to be about more famous people who don't fit BIO1E), all the entries that fit my criteria and follow this IMO are: Carl McCunn, Kenji Urada, Sergei Chalibashvili, Garry Hoy, Gloria Ramirez, Brittanie Cecil, Kenneth Pinyan, Kevin Whitrick, Surinder Singh Bajwa, and Abagail Taylor


 * The two exceptions are:
 * C.B. Lansing (killed on Aloha Airlines Flight 243 -- but this barely meets my conditions)
 * Gregory Biggs -- the description of the incident is in his killer's article, Chante Jawan Mallard, which seems to have the same problem


 * So it looks to me like there's rather more precedent on Wikipedia already for merging the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan article into Neda Agha-Soltan, even if the BIO1E guideline would suggest it should go the other way.


 * EvanED (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As you concede, these "biographies" actually focus on the incidents far more than the biographies. This shows they should be merged back to/turned into articles about the incident. This just seems to be a classic other crap exists argument. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a definite shade of "other crap exists" to what I said, but I would say that this goes beyond a classic instance of that argument, in that I'm not just pointing out a couple examples, but have gone to some effort to establish a general Wikipedia trend. (In the examples I gave I would say that there are three or even four somewhat independent entry points, so I'd say it's not like I found a particular corner of Wikipedia where this is the case.) So if the BIO1E policy should exclude the article on Neda herself, I would say that Wikipedia doesn't just violate that policy on occasion, but systematically violates it to the point of it being the norm. (And keep in mind that "other stuff exists" arguments are not necessarily invalid.)
 * If it's decided that Neda's article should be merged into "The Death of Neda" that's fine with me; I don't really have a stake in the argument. But if it turns out to be so on account of BIO1E, then you might see a bunch of requests from me on the articles linked in my first post. (I don't intend this to sound like a threat or anything like that, because I don't want it to. I just value consistency.) EvanED (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a good thing. Sadly, at any AfD or discussion, like this one, there are people arguing to put it at the biography title for all the wrong reasons, and so getting this issue sorted is going to take a while. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge: Per nom, ingore POV pushers. Ryan 4314   (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Holder (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The !votes are confusing, but if you look at those who are explicit in where the merge should end up, it's at about 2-1 to 3-1 in favor of merging into Neda Agha-Soltan. Also, looking at martyrs in Category:Lists_of_Christian_martyrs, it is common practice to have their article under their name, not "Death of...", even for the most obscure ones who are notable only for their death. Priyanath talk 17:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge as Neda Agha-Soltan. Passes Notability test clearly and much more appropriate title. --Marianian (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think in this case WP:NOTNEWS can be ignored per WP:IAR, at least, that's what I think, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:ONEEVENT. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge both articles into the emerging consensus at Talk:Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan per (1) The one event guideline (2) The separate biography has barely more detail than the biography in the shooting/death article, so there is no content justification for a specialty article either. gidonb (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Merge and WP:SNOW ffs. -- samj in out 03:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan --SkyWalker (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Neda Agha-Soltan. She is notable for one event, but its a historically significant event, and one that clearly establishes her overall notability. Peter G Werner (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan, per Priyanath. Alefbe (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan, per several users above. Pasquale (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC) :Consider that there are no such articles as Death of Emmett Till, Death of Jan Palach, Death of Anna Politkovskaya, etc., but only Emmett Till, Jan Palach, Anna Politkovskaya, etc.  Pasquale (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep She is not simply a symbol she is also a person. Most users will know her as the symbol but want to know the real life of the person.Dejvid (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your second sentence pretty much sums up what I see as the main problem. An encyclopedia does not aim to tell people whatever they might like to know--nor does it avoid telling them what they may not like to hear. As a tertiary source, an encyclopedia tries to keep a relatively safe distance from the sentiment du jour, and to summarize the existing summaries of what is known. So the question is not really, "Do people want to know about Neda's life?" but rather, "Do people already know enough (i.e., are there enough primary sources) about Neda's life that other people have taken enough notice of this knowledge (i.e., have published enough secondary sources) that we may take notice of all this noticing and knowing (i.e., that a tertiary overview is warranted)? No one is denying that Neda was a person. However, as someone pointed out earlier (albeit in a defense of the biographical approach), "any encyclopedic subject of interest should be covered, in whatever depth is possible" (new emphasis mine). Some good (i.e., in-depth) invesitgations of her life might very well turn up. But at this point, a biographical article looks like the product of a tertiary source trying to preempt primary and secondary efforts to expand knowledge; and such an article seems liable to broaden the scope of accessible information and to lengthen the list of retrievable data, but will struggle to make the conceptual and historical connections through which it can deepen such awareness into encyclopedic understanding. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is well referenced using reliable sources. If your point is that there is not enough secondary stuff on her life to make the article much longer you may be right.  However, that is only a problem because we have started to set ourselves a standard of what a good biographical article should be that is more appropriate to the President of the US.  It is a good and useful summery of what is known about her.  It is a topic that users will want to read about - that is what Wikipedia is for.  To reframe my point to suggest that I'm saying that we should tell people what they want to hear is  something quite different  and to read that into what I wrote is, to my mind, a somewhat strange interpretation.Dejvid (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Neda's bio's best-and -ongoing traffic equals that of "Sonia Sotomayor," too (see graph here)'; while the traffic for the WP article about Neda's fatal shooting/iconization simply   d  w  a  r  f  s    the traffic for the article "Sonia Sotomeyer Supreme Court nomination" (see graph here)! ↜Just  M &thinsp;E  here&#8202;,&#8202;now'''  06:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Neda Agha-Soltan. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Neda Agha-Soltan. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Too large to merge and too notable to delete.  Rgood erm  ote    16:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: For reasons submitted by Peter G Werner, among others. The fact that she gained notoriety through her murder is not dispositve. pjpark (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge both to Neda Agha-Soltan. There should only be a "Death of ...." article, if an independent article exists on that person as well. - Epson291 (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per BLP1E. MickMacNee (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge back to the death, without it there is little content. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge+Redirect per WP:ONEEVENT.  Most of the people commenting here are not addressing policy, but rather are commenting based on their views towards this person.   She did not do anything notable before being killed and it's yet to be known if her death will have any long term notability.  Corpx (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable, and it's ridiculous to have a page called Death of Neda Agha-Soltan without having a page on Neda Agha-Soltan. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If anything the article on her death should be merged into this article. She has become a symbol for the protests in Iran and as such is as worthy of her own article as Tank Man. Her life will be analyzed in depth by media for years to come because of her death. We can't include all those details in the article on her death.--User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - she 'is'' notable, but only for her death. Therefore having two articles is not needed. GiantSnowman 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge both to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. There is not even marginal notability to justify a page of her own. Unlike the case with most articles concerning deaths quoted above as examples that use a bio page, in this instance Neda's identity (at this time) is irrelevant to notability. Wayne (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - According to traffic stats, after the creation of the pair of articles, the viewership of the bio stub "Neda Agha-Soltan" (see graph here) and the viewership of the article on the event the "Death of Neda Agha-Soltan" (see graph here) remain almost exactly identical. Hence, if we subsume the biographical material completely into the event article (or vice-versa), all we'd accomplish is a net saving to readers of one mouse click, each. But what we'd be losing is the fact that the coverage of the event in time would become more and more bogged down in the details of her biography (or vice-versa). ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  17:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but you're not connecting those stats with any reasoning as to their relevance to this debate. — Ω (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The page hits have absolutely no relevance to this discussion and I think that the above statements should be removed from this page.  Corpx (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow... that wasn't my intent in mentioning the problem at all. Have a political axe of some sort to grind in this discussion? Regardless, I disagree, the statements definitely do not need to be removed from the discussion. That's just silly. All I was attempting to say was that some additional commentary would be helpful in order to put the raw statistics into perspective for this discussion. — Ω (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: To me, in light of his earlier post, Justmeherenow's stats suggest 1) that readers are oriented equally to Neda-as-person and to Neda-as-event; 2) that readers (being drawn, for example, more to Sotomayor-as-person than to Sotomayor-as-event) do not always demonstrate such equilibrium; and, therefore, 3) that readers' intuitions are best suited, in this case, by the existence of two separate articles. Having already made my case, I don't wish to evaluate this line of reasoning; but I hope I've properly distilled and adequately stated it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, I agree with your evaluation. Over the years though I've learned that the stark reality which statistics present cause political opinions to sharply polarize, as can be exemplified by the comment from "Corpx" above. Therefore, simply presenting statistics is often more divisive and ultimately less informative then not presenting them is.
 * Anyway... I think that this discussion has somewhat lost it's bearings. I've been following it from th start, both here and on the associated talk pages, and there are some issues to address. First, structurally, this proposal is somewhat malformed. As has been pointed out earlier, the Neda Agha-Soltan article can't actually be deleted as a matter of policy. More importantly though, the discussion is just generally confused and does not appear to be accomplishing anything. A large part of that very likely comes from the sensationalism and raw emotion which the story evoked, but that is starting to subside slightly now. The point being, I propose that this nomination be closed (as keep, basically by default). We can begin a new conversation about it either on the talk page(s) or... in centralized discussion? — Ω (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Got carried away and wrote what's, I guess, an "essay" ( --> here.) ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  21:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm assuming that the first "a" in your essay's title is just a typo and wasn't meant to create a sort of double entendre... Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and merge death-of article back into this article. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I never comment but I suggest deleting both articles all together and just include the info the "2009 Iranian election protest" article. Red link her until at least there is a discernable outcome to this whole thing.  Then maybe revisit creating a separate article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.180.145 (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. This article and the related Death article, into the Iranina protests article. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. She is known for her death, so that should be with her bio and main article, not seperate. She is not known for anything other than getting killed, sadly. It should all be in one article. R32GTR (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: As this AfD enters its seventh day, I (the nominator) would have no reason to complain if it were closed as "keep" and continued on article talk as a merge discussion. I'm not formally requesting a nomination withdrawal (which actually could be in bad taste at this point), but I'm willing to concede that it's had its moment in the AfD sun. Or, to invoke another toasty image, I don't want to keep a discussion at AfD if it's not actually an AfD discussion and doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of becoming one. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that the merge debate should limp along any longer. It's very clear that editors want only one article. It's a matter for an admin to read the arguments and decide which article stays, and which article becomes a redirect. There is a clear consensus now for only one article. WWGB (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And the one article editors want is this one, by about a 2-1 margin (based on those who are specific about where they want the merge to go). Having another merge discussion would disregard all of the editors here who have already made their point. Priyanath talk 05:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also more logical to have this article remain since inserting all of her biographical information wouldn't be appropriate in the other article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: For anyone who might not know, it does not have to be an admin who makes the final call or takes the final action on a merge/redirect. Anyone with sufficient WP:CLUE and enough respect for consensus can do that. It does not even have to be an admin who closes this AfD. An impartial non-admin could do a WP:NAC on this one. What I had in mind with my last comment was that as soon as an AfD discussion has answered, "To be, or not to be?" about an article, it has ceased to be an AfD discussion. It looks like the resounding consensus here is "to be", which is why I suggested that the discussion be resumed on article talk. I don't mean that the debate should be able to drag on for an eternity or that it even has to consist of anything more than acknowledgement of the AfD consensus--just that it might best be settled over yonder. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The one thing that is crystal clear is that this AfD should be closed. I take issue with the stance that "It's very clear that editors want only one article.", but that's not an issue which should be discussed at length here. Anyway, I would close this myself, but the guideline clearly states that participants should not do so. — Ω (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Neda Agha-Soltan. Having an article on the person is better than having an article just on the person's death. Captain   panda  13:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Too large to merge and too notable to delete.Christophe Neff (talk) 15:30, 1 July 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.