Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Svidersky

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 of the debate was no consensus. As a note, I think it quite possible that this decision will get reversed within a year. However, Svidersky is but one example of a noted media phenomenon, which itself has attracted considerable attention. Mackensen (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Svidersky

Originally incorrectly nominated on WP:MFD by User:Rockneedsasavior. I'm transferring it here as a courtesy. Comments from the MFD page follow. No vote. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• As sad as Anna Svidersky's death is (and it is), I don't feel that Wikipedia should devote a page to her. In the spirit of being diplomatic, I would like this matter discussed. Mitch 17:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• I also think it is extremely sad but I also agree that there shouldn't be a page devoted to her. Her death did get a lot of attention in the Washington area, but there are a lot of high profile murders that happen elswhere. (In the Los Angeles area alone a lot of media attention is given to many crimes but they don't have a wikipage and L.A. is the second largest media market in the US next to New York). If you look at the edit history of this article, it was written as a memorial page to her. What is even more telling that this is a memorial page is that no article of the suspected murderer, David Barton Sullivan exists. It is, I believe, the sole "victim only" article on here. Other articles of victims such as Natalee Holloway at least mention in detail, about the suspects. Wikipedia is not a memorial and this article is being treated as one which is evident by the constant POV assertions. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comments above this line were placed before the debate was transferred. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (with a cleanup) per WP:BIO for live people, I quote: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". I think she would pass the live test per the article from UK plus the charity event at McDo. Given this is a deceased person, the only proposed policy I see there is (I paraphrase) "A widely recognized impact on history" which is fairly vague and maybe too strict. I think one could make a case that there could be an impact on issues of fastfood workplace security given the publicity. The cleanup IMO should focus more on the workplace murder to justify the notability Crum375 22:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep The Guardian is a reputable source that verifies that Anna Svidersky's death has gained "worldwide attention". It does not now read at all like a memorial, but as an informative article. My condolences to Anna's family and friends. Tyrenius 01:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Her death has made an impact on the world. Right now, she may not seem like she deserves a page, but later down the road someone may need or want this information. I have seen articles that I needed that were deleted because at that point in time those people did not see them relevant. If we delete Anna, we might as well delete anyone else who has been murdered. There are many articles in here about people who just died. Though, perhaps you should mention how her death has affected the world. Fiwtart 21:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • new user - contribs
• Keep, but requires a firm grip to ensure her notability is illustrated in NPOV terms. I find it terribly sad that this girl's murder is notable only for expanding Myspace's tawdry ubiquity into the sphere of mourning, rather than for her tragic death per se. Nevertheless, that is what she will be remembered for outside her local community and that is why she deserves an article. Rockpocket (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It is tragic but Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it Wikinews. Rossami (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Memorial would be if you focus on the person's life. News would be if it's a run-of-the-mill event. In this case, if the article can be focused on the workplace murder, and subsequent events, given that there was world wide publicity, I think it would be construed as notable. Crum375 16:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, you made that case above. I disagree. It's a sad statement about our society but this is a run-of-the-mill event. Had it not been a slow news day, this would not have recieved any significant publicity. Any general discussion of the concept of "workplace murder" should be made on a specific page at that title - not in a biography. Rossami (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, getting murdered does not confer notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Angr (t • c) 19:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Per What Wikipedia is Not, Wikipedia cannot be a memorial. This page reads like it was written by one of Anna's friends as a way to memorialize what may have very well been a wonderful girl. Again, I am not anti-rememberance, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. Mitch 22:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • user also commented above the line
  • I agree that as it is written now it sounds like a memorial. The only way it can stay is if it's fixed up to highlight why this murder is different than most and why the case will be memorable far into the future (not just for family and friends), and do it all by pointing to neutral verifiable sources. That's a tall order for sure. Crum375 22:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Please note I have rewritten this article throughout from an encyclopedic viewpoint. It is a mistake to see it as a "memorial" or "tribute" page. The wider significance of this tragedy was clearly asserted by The Guardian newspaper, which is one of the four "serious" national UK papers (for those not familiar with it) and which I have used as a main verifiable source. Comments above are based on the previous version of this article. Tyrenius 02:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think the latest version is much improved. It probably warrants new votes or comments from the 'Delete' voters. Crum375 02:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I must disagree. If anything, this version strikes me as even less encyclopedic than the version I reviewed previously. No change of opinion. Rossami (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No change of opinion here, either. I stand by the NfD, lest we make pages for everyone who no longer lives, but whose MySpace page continues to attract attention. Miss Anna Svidersky is not the first, and is not the last. Mitch 04:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It is your personal opinion that it is a "run of the mill event". From a NPOV a verifiable and reputable source has described this as "on a global scale". Likewise, where is there any evidence to assert that this only received coverage because it was a "slow news day"? A tribute video with a million hits is sufficient on its own to justify the article. Tyrenius 02:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I respectfully propose that Angr et al completely miss the point. Anna Svidersky is the first (though probably not the last) example of extensive MySpace mourning. She wasn't notable in life, and even her death itself wasn't notable. But as The Guardian put it: "The grim truth is that this tragedy has mutated into the latest internet buzz". By that criteria, she easily qualifies per WP:WEB. Rockpocket (talk)
• Delete as per WP:NOT--Peta 06:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT is a broad topic. If you mean 'not a memorial', then by reading the latest version of the article you will see it is not that. The issue essentially being voted on here is whether the fact that this murder was the first (apparently) relatively obscure death to be spread by MySpace/Internet and cause the 'mourning after' grief syndrome for many thousands of strangers worldwide, as attested to by the Guardian article, supports sufficient notability to justify inclusion. Crum375 12:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable.  Grue  15:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP, what harm is it possibly doing being there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.162.134 (talk • contribs) .
• keep please this person should have an article Yuckfoo 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I find that this had some significance because her death did get a lot of attention. It was not what I would consider a memorial. Like I said in my vote above, I was searching for information on google a while ago, and I could not find the information. I found one site that was about the DELETION of the article I had been searching hours for. In the end, I never found the information I needed because someone considered the page a memorial (and it was an old deletion from over a year before I found it). Lots of pages that people would consider a memorial do have value to some people. Plus, what will it hurt to have one more article on wikipedia? Fiwtart 16:51 EST, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - now that this seems to have been cleaned up, I think it's important. I'm from New Zealand (note: nowhere near Washington) and I heard about her death, which is both unusual and notable for what would usually be an everyday American murder. There is a lot of talk about her on teenage websites, and IMO it's useful to have a reference to who she is. - Ktbaby 08:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • new user - contribs
• Delete, recentism from sensationalist media. No one will remember it within few months. This is not memorial. Pavel Vozenilek 20:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep although WP:NOT a memorial, the article is not a simple "a lived and a died and will be missed" she became a newsworthy topic carried by major media due to the circumstances of her death... if we delete this then we need to nuke Polly Klaas and María Elena Chávez Caldera and everyone in Category:Murdered children.  ALKIVAR™ 01:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, we probably do need to clean out most of those as well. They are very sad but not encyclopedic. Rossami (talk)

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.