Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Orobator


 * 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. Our biographies of living persons policies have much more importance over the fact that the event of this woman's arrest is a news story in the UK. The content of the article can be retrieved and merged upon request.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 04:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Samantha Orobator

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E. Many people get arrested every day. A simple arrest for alleged drug trafficking does not make someone notable even if there is extensive news coverage. Harry the Dog WOOF  11:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per numerous sources pointing towards notability over the normal drug mule case. Orobators story is known in many nations. Also the reasons for the deletion seems a bit weak to say the least.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Citing three Wikipedia policies is a bit weak? Extensive media coverage does not equate notability. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." It is likely that this is the only event for which she will be in the news. If that proves not to be the case, then an article can be considered. Harry the Dog WOOF  11:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have said what is needed to say. I rest my case and let other people decide. But your grounds for deletion does not apply on Orobators article.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as above, and the fact that the nominator nominated the article for deletion three different times in less than five minutes on very vage grounds.--Judo112 (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I nominated it for speedy which was not accepted. I am going through the proper channels for deletion. I thought about a WP:PROD but decided that it was better to have a discussion. Just because a speedy is not accepted does not mean that an article shouldn't be deleted after proper discussion, so you'll need to come up with better reasons than that, citing Wikipedia policy. Harry the Dog WOOF  11:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No but it doesnt neither mean that it should be deleted just because the nominator is of a strong "deletion opinion" like you. And i have to agree with Judo it seems a bi strange that you nominate it for deletion just minutes after a speedy deletion request was denied.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Especially on the grounds that "decline speedy - multiple sources indicate notability".--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP1E is still a fair reason to argue for deletion, especially considering that the admin who declined the speedy stated the article was a potential AFD candidate . Nothing strange going on here. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the admin asked for someone to check it out and then perhaps nominate it for deletion. The nomination should have been placed here after a look trough and not in haste. And perhaps not by Harry but by a impartial administrator.--Judo112 (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am an impartial observer who has actually read the guidelines I quote. It is perfectly acceptable for me to nominate, and it is improper for you to suggest otherwise. Harry the Dog WOOF  11:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No need for any sort of personal attacks. Everyone is entitled to their opinion concerning individual articles here on Wikipedia its not a "one man state".--Judo112 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but who is engaging in borderline personal attacks? You say, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion concerning individual articles..." immediately after saying in essence I have no right to voice my opinion by nominating it for deletion. As the creator of this article, maybe you would be better to take a step back. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you take a step back Judo. There's no reason why the same person cannot nominate it for AfD after putting it up for a speedy delete. Just stick to discussing whether it meets the guidelines please. Quantpole (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is both Judo and Harry the dog,s discussion and Judo shouldnt be the blame-game victim. However i ask all parties to read trough this.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not interested in meta-discussions.--Judo112 (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. THe guidelines on 'one event' go on to say "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." I think we can now say that there is persistent coverage, but obviously, interpretation of this will vary. Quantpole (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep You really cited 1 policy/guideline. Agree with Quantpole--Unionhawk Talk 11:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment No, they are three different guidelines with different criteria. That's why they are listed separately. If we were to include everything that was mentioned in multiple news sources for a few days, this would no longer be an encyclopaedia. What is considered "persistent" news coverage needs to be looked at retrospectively, not in the heat of the event. It is far too early for this article. Harry the Dog WOOF  11:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but move to event name Keep but move to event name (2009 Orobator-Laos drug mule incident/allegations?) Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article should retain her first name, but not include the year as she was arrested in 2008, and the story only came to light this year.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The situation is a Cause celebre example of WP:BLP1E. The unique facts driving news media over-exposure are Orobator's pregnancy and strict capital punishment laws in Laos — but news sources cover Orobator only in the context of the arrest in Laos. Avoid news media coverage as rationale for an encyclopedia article, which is premature for this developing incident. Mtd2006 (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as suggested by Hipocrite. This is an international incident and controversy with plenty of RS coverage that will continue to develop beyond the NOT#NEWS scope. -- J mundo 15:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Yes, I hate it when people use wikipedia for news, but the volume of coverage here is so overwhelming that there is absolutely no question of notability, even if it's a single event. I also want to pointt out that this event is tied into so many interesting legal, cultural, diplomatic, and ethical issues.  It's interesting.  In my opinion, this is among the best possible examples of single events that should be covered in detail by wikipedia.  Cazort (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This is what WP:NOT is about. Flashy story with high coverage? Yes. Enduring historical notability? Almost certainly zero. Ray  Talk 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Cazort and MarkusBJoke. This is not just about drug mule, it has human rights issues in it, e.g. Orobator's pregnancy and attempts to bring the trial forward. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear WP:BLP case. The article implies she trafficked drugs which is clearly negative material about a living person. Articles purely based on said negative content should be avoided. - Mgm|(talk) 17:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think the article is problematic, then edit/improve it! I don't think material being "negative" is valid grounds for deleting a biography of a living person.  We are to avoid slander and defamatory content...but there's no problem with neutral statements of simple facts backed up in numerous reliable sources.  And is the article really that negative?  After all, a lot of the articles are about how people are calling for her protection and trying to make sure she doesn't get executed!!!  Cazort (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree there are also WP:BLP issues. It is not usual for someone who is not already notable to have a page created because they have been charged with a crime. There is also the potential for this page to become a campaigning vehicle for Samantha Orobator's supporters, which again is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. (There are already hints of this with the addition of the "Human rights in Laos" see also.) The fact is, she rose to prominence because she was a pregnant woman potentially facing the death penalty. Now that it has been confirmed she won't, interest in this story will wane. Harry the Dog WOOF  07:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the see also link, not to turn it into a campaigning page (which as you say it should not be), but because according to news, her rights have been violated, e.g. trial date moved to stop her getting legal representation. As for her being pregnant, she is currently 4-5 months pregnant, yet was arrested 9 months ago. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, people have their rights violated in custody every day. That does not mean they merit a Wikipedia article. In any event, the last execution in Laos was almost 20 years ago, so the threat of execution was remote at best. Laos does not routinely execute people. It is also standard in Laos, as even Reprieve acknowledges, for defendants not to have access to lawyers until right before the trial. There really is nothing unusual enough in this case that merits a separate article on the individual. Harry the Dog WOOF  16:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep First of all, she is a suspect, the article doesn't imply guilt. either way, this has significant coverage and rather than outright delete, merge it with a death penalty in Laos article, if it exists. riffic (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article does NOT fail BLP because it's sourced to multiple media sources which are accurate and reliable, and it's a fairly major news story. Having said that I don't know how significant this is going to be in the long term hence I'm not sure about the 'one event' test.--Yo Dawg! What&#39;s Going On Today? (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * -Rename and move to Case of Samantha Orobator. Undoubtedly there are multiple, secondary, reliable sources but they are about the case (i.e. arrest, consequences and preparation for trial) and not about Orobator's life and career. This should not be a bio article. TerriersFan (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is notable, current and encyclopaedic. Anyone facing such a barbaric punishment (that's what capital punishment is) is big news in civilized countries of the world (that excludes the USA, Saudi Arabia, etc.) I'm not going to quote lots of pointless wikipedia policies and guidelines in providing my reasoning as that's a moronic thing to do.  If you want it kept, say why.  If you want it deleted, say why.  Don't just quote lots of policies and other acronyms - that's the most annoying thing about wikipedia: the policies which allow lazy editors to vote without thinking properly or explaining THEIR reasons.--217.203.140.226 (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is an excellent example of why the article should be deleted or renamed. It is based on a misconception. She is not facing capital punishment. If that is the only reason why she is notable, it is a false reason. The policies are there for a reason. Read and understand them before commenting. Without policies and guidelines, Wikipedia becomes a pointless free for all. Harry the Dog WOOF  06:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Straightforward BLP1E. (If she's discussed months from now, that will be a different matter.) The person commenting anonymously immediately above is of course free to term this vote ("!vote") and/or myself "moronic". Lazily yours, Hoary (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A notable human rights case, which gained worldwide media attention. The British government sent someone over to talk to them about this even.   D r e a m Focus  20:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly!--Judo112 (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The UK government always intervenes when a citizen is arrested in such circumstances. So that hardly makes it notable. They sent somebody because they don't have a resident consul. This has now gone from the headlines as I was sure it would. Nothing new on Google news search since 7 May. Simply no more notable than any other arrest for alleged drug smuggling. Many of the details are simply speculation (we don't know how she got pregnant again; people are assuming it was against her will but we don't know. For an encyclopaedia, it has to be verifiable. When we know the full details of the case, we can determine whether it is a notable event. Until then, it is only speculation. Harry the Dog WOOF  08:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per Cazort and Dream Focus. Significant incident which had prompted reactions and talks between the governments of the two countries involved, and which has received widespread coverage. Aridd (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge to Human rights in Laos. I can't see that every Westerner accused of drug smuggling in SE Asia needs a Wikipedia article. Fences and windows (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Although her case is by itself not notable, it deserves inclusion in Humans rights in Laos, in particular because she became preganant after being jailed, almost certainly by being raped in jail. Fences and windows (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all western durg smugglers have their own wikipedia page first of all. Second, Orobator is a special case which had recieved more coverage than your average drug smuggler case/person. So your reasons arent the best, but hey.--Judo112 (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You will of course recognise a rhetorical flourish. She shouldn't have an article as she's only accused ("editors must give serious consideration into not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured"), she is not otherwise notable, and neither the potential motivation or exectution of the alleged crime was unusual or noteworthy. See Notability_(criminal_acts). Fences and windows (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the alleged crime itself (which was not a huge amount of drugs), but about the events surrounding it, especially the human rights issues that have been publicised, how Laos wishes to be seen, the Anglo-Laos negotiations and possible prisoner exchange that has come out of this. Also it is not clear that she was raped, this claims that she consented (It is a mixed prison). Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That is why if it is kept it should be merged. As to the pregnancy, it is possible that, as she was pregnant when she was arrested, she may have been told that because of this she would not face the death penalty. When she lost the baby, it is certainly possible that she may have sought to become pregnant again because of this. There is just too much speculation on the key issues that affect notability for an article to be included at this time, especially since the media interest has waned with the clarification that she won't face the DP and will probably serve most of any sentence back in the UK. This is an encyclopedia, not a rolling news service. There is nothing wrong with waiting for things to become clearer before recreating this article if necessary. Harry the Dog WOOF  05:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Human rights in Laos. While she probably doesn't warrant her own article, as per the policies cited by the nominator, the reason her case has received such international publicity is that it has brought focus to Laos's treatment of prisoners.  If the issue becomes sufficiently major, the article can be split out again.--Aervanath (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete until she meets notability requirements. She's a suspected drug smuggler under arrest and there are thousands of similar people, I'm not seeing anything important or significant about her case.  Even if she technically met the guidelines for notability it would be WP:ONEEVENT at this point. Drawn Some (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletetrivial crime; the interest isv only in the conflict of cultures. If she does get the dealh penalty, which I gather from the story is unlikely, then she might become notable.DGG (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article meets all of the deletion criteria as set out by policy as stated by the nominator which is my long winded way of saying "per nom". -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep leaning merge. Wikipedia could have thousands of such articles on rather trivial people in the news. Seems a summary in another article, thus a merge, would be best to serve our readers as a modern example of the various issues at play. -- Banj e  b oi   00:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Why was this re-listed? it seems consensus was already reached, either merge or close as keep and move on. riffic (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still say Keep as this person has reached notability beyond your average drug smuggler/criminal.--Judo112 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this discussion still going on. For me this is a straight to Keep article. No doubt about it.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Delete minded people dont seem to have mutch really to point towards deletion more than the usual pointing towards wikipedia rules this wikipedia rules that-... Which anyway points to keeping this article.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please point to any Wikipedia policy that says that an article should be created for an otherwise non-notable person who has been arrested as drug-smuggling suspect? If we don't follow the rules and guidelines why bother having them? I have pointed to three policies this article clearly fails at the moment (although it may not in the future). If it does meet notability guidelines in the future it can be recreated, but for now it should be deleted or merged. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an important current event, so deserves a mention Fahrenheit  16:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is the point; the event may be notable but the person isn't. Consequently the page should, if kept, be moved. TerriersFan (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But if we, lets say, delete it... And she then gets death sentence or a really long prison sentence that will get enormous publicity what do we do?... Also the fact that she could be transferred doesnt change the facts about her and her notability.Actually that will only increase her notability because of the UKs efforts to bring her home.--Judo112 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Judo112, you have just demonstrated neatly why this article should be deleted. You are arguing for it's retention based on speculation. "If" this and "if" that. If indeed any of these things come to pass, the article can simply be recreated by an admin. But at the moment she is not notable. The UK government provides support for any citizen arrested abroad who requests it. Plus, let's once and for all be clear that she won't get the death penalty, as confirmed by a senior Laotian minister, so that "if" is definitely not happening, and certainly lessens her notability. The only thing that conforms to Wikipedia policy is to delete and recreate later if notability is confirmed. Harry the Dog WOOF  17:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, coatrack, not news, BLP1E. Take your pick. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 19 May 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.