Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Michalik
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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
The event is encyclopedic, and is handled in an encyclopedic manner in Big Day Out. The person is not encyclopedic and since there are living relatives there are biographies of living persons (BLP) issues. In short, the policy tells us the biographies of people known only for one event needn't be written about in their own right.
Uncle G's suggestion of a redirect to Big Day Out is well taken. This may be created. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jessica Michalik
Non-notable person. Someone who is only notable for their death can be notable (see famous murder victims, for example Matthew Shepard) - however, someone who died by accident is not notable. This individual is not herself notable - information on her death should be merged with moshing. Chardish 00:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Notable but needs more sources. ExtraDry 09:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and/or redirect to Big Day Out, or create a new article something like Big Day Out 2001 Sydney incident. The person is not notable, but the incident is. (per WP:BLP1E - thanks Uncle G :) Orderinchaos 10:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect and Merge per Orderinchaos (Who edit conflicted me just as I was posting thanks very much). Subject does not qualify for an article in it's own right in accordance with WP:MEMORIAL and
WP:BLPWP:BIO. The subject of the article is only notable for a single event, being her unfortunate death. The references are not cited inline, therefore each of the facts as written cannot be checked, failing WP:CITE. Subject also does not receive notability by association as a result of a notable band playing at her funeral. Thewinchester (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)- That doesn't prevent the facts from being checked at all. You have made a common error. Lack of spoon-feeding does not make an article unverifiable. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#The requirement is only that the sources be cited somehow. Uncle G 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - The subject of the article does not meet WP:BIO (not sure how WP:BLP applies) and I am not convinced the incident is notable enough for the information to be merged to any of Limp Bizkit, Big Day Out or Moshing. I certainly do not think that her death, as unfortunate as it was, merits an article in its own right. Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 10:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Bloody good point there Mattinbgn, shows just how long a day it had been for me when I made those comments. Thewinchester (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- The part of the policy that you are both looking for is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about living people notable only for one event, which in turn is based upon the principle that not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. Uncle G 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Bloody good point there Mattinbgn, shows just how long a day it had been for me when I made those comments. Thewinchester (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Big Day Out as her death led to changes in procedures and was one of the most significant in the event's history. [1] Also worth a mention in the Limp Bizkit article as they were criticised by the coroner. Capitalistroadster 10:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge -- and redirect to the Big Day Out article. A passing mention in the Limp Bizkit article is worthy of note also. - Longhair\talk 11:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to the Big Day Out article, although the BDO article is getting awfully long. Recurring dreams 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto Merge. The BDO article is surprisingly huge. But this person's death seems much more notable than incidents of hoax press releases. I say merge it into BDO's History section and if something has to go, it should be some of the existing BDO content. Canuckle 23:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep notability is not just what a person does, but can also be what happens to a person, as here. (but the BDO article could possibly be divided by year to accomodate this) DGG 16:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
- What happened to this person was that she was killed. The criticism of a rock performer by a coroner doesn't form part of a biography of her life and works. Uncle G 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Per the principle that I outlined in the pretty coloured box at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23, redirect to Big Day Out, where this person's death is already covered in its proper context and without the pretense of being a biographical article. Uncle G 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Big Day Out per Uncle G. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and not everything that appears in the newspapers needs to have an encyclopedia article dedicated to it. Edison 16:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect the verifiable information to a section in the Big Day Out article, then use this section as an anchor for brief entries in other related articles, i.e. Limp Bizkit and moshing. Significant event in the history of the concert, but does not pass notability criteria as a biography. -- saberwyn 23:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect, per WP:NOT tabloid journalism. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There are 351 articles about her in Factiva. It was heavily publicised at the time, and still gets cited years later. This isn't even a marginal case, and it's one where it really mightn't have hurt to have a) done some research, or b) asked some Australians about its notability, before racing off to delete it. Rebecca 10:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest that you actually do some of that research that you are talking about. Those of us who have done the research, which involves not counting search engine hits but actually reading the articles, have seen that the articles are not "about her". They are about the festival, the coroner's report, the changes to safety measures, the arguments between the promoters and the performers, the insurance liabilities, and the civil suits, all of which belong in, and many of which can already be found in, Big Day Out. Presenting any of this as if it were a biography of a person's life and works is a pretense. Once again, and in boldface: Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. Uncle G 19:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Jessica Michalik was not just 'some trampling victim'. Her death brought into attention a lot of issues, including poor crowd control at concerts; it resulted in legal action against Australia's biggest music festival, and against Fred Durst, the lead singer of Limp Bizkit. It was very heavily publicised at the time; it still gets mentioned whenever something goes awry at a concert. This is honestly like proposing to delete Matthew Shephard or Rodney King - this was a precedent-setting death. In a less-populated country like Australia, things like this receive a lot of attention. It thus may be hard for the primarily American Wikipedia contributors to put Michalik into perspective. However, she is (I use 'is' to describe the incidents and ramifications of her death, not the person) definitely notable - her death, while unfortunate, helped to bring about a lot of changes. It was newsworthy at the time. It is certainly article-worthy now. Riana ⁂ 10:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- You are aware that many of the editors who have suggested deletion or merging are Australian. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 11:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for assuming I have not fully read this discussion. I made that comment for future voters. Riana ⁂ 11:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just making the point that not all Australians feel the subject is notable. Your comment, whether it was meant to or not, could imply that was not case. Also, I am not a big fan of assuming that those non-Australians who have voted on the subject have not been able to do their own research on the notability of the subject and come to a fair conclusion. Once again, whether you meant to or not, your comment could be read to imply this.-- Mattinbgn/ talk 11:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- My comment was directed purely as a response to commenters above who clearly had not done that research. If you think that the reason this article exists is because "a notable band played at her funeral", you've very clearly not done even basic research into the actual case; it exists for the reasons Riana outlined above. Rebecca 13:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Matt, I apologise for my tone - I'm just a little surprised that someone's suggested this article should be deleted. How do you suggest I modify my comment? I am certainly not suggesting all non-Aussies have not done their research - I am merely trying to point out that something like 'some kid got trampled at a rock concert' might happen all the time in countries with many more kids, many more rock concerts, many more opportunities for such events to occur. In Australia, something like this is rare - I'm sure we agree on that point.
I also particularly dislike the idea of a merge into the general Big Day Out article. Certainly it merits a mention in the article. But I believe that Michalik's death was more than sufficiently noteworthy to merit a standalone article. This is not BLP we're dealing with. This is how one girl's death changed a lot of the things we do at concerts. `Riana ⁂ 14:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- No. It merits discussion in the article, because the ramifications were nothing to do with this person and everything to do with the festival, its promoters, and the artists who were performing there. Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. A discussion of the aftermath of a death at a rock concert is by no stretch of the imagintion a biographical article on a person's life and works. Uncle G 19:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- As Riana pointed out, we already have numerous articles on people who are notable, not for their lives, but their deaths. Riana named some of them above, but I can think of quite a few more. These articles aren't "a biography of their life and work"; much of those articles, necessarily, cover the notable ramifications of their deaths. Michalik's death wasn't just notable to the extent of one concert; it fundamentally changed the way concerts are operated across the country. The ramifications of her death were very significant - and crucially, not just to the Big Day Out. It deserves a standalone article, and articles have been kept with far, far, far less evidence of notability. I can't help but much of this just comes down to "I haven't heard of her." Rebecca 23:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that this has to be a keep as under WP:BIO Jessica "has demonstrable wide name recognition". Anytime Big Day Out, mosh pits, big rock concerts are mentioned in a newspaper, her name always comes up. Her death raised issues about crowd safety, organ donation, the naming of a park, and the creation of a memorial trust by Australian record companies. I agree that in over 350 articles, all bar two only mention Jessica in passing, but she has name recognition. I have added a reference to that article by Anna Cock about her in the Daily Tele (hard copy only, no weblinks). The topic of her tragic death is definitely notable enough to have its own page anyway, and it would also qualify under the splitting rule for long pages anyway. Anyway way you look at it, the topic is deserving of a separate page. Anyway, there is enough controversy for it to be kept for failure of consensus, so can we move on and discuss deleting something else. Assize 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- We have articles on deaths and murders. We don't name them after the people who died and we don't pretend that they are biographies of those people's lives and works. The ramifications of this person's death should not be covered in an article that pretends to be a biography of a person. Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. Uncle G 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- As Riana pointed out, we already have numerous articles on people who are notable, not for their lives, but their deaths. Riana named some of them above, but I can think of quite a few more. These articles aren't "a biography of their life and work"; much of those articles, necessarily, cover the notable ramifications of their deaths. Michalik's death wasn't just notable to the extent of one concert; it fundamentally changed the way concerts are operated across the country. The ramifications of her death were very significant - and crucially, not just to the Big Day Out. It deserves a standalone article, and articles have been kept with far, far, far less evidence of notability. I can't help but much of this just comes down to "I haven't heard of her." Rebecca 23:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- No. It merits discussion in the article, because the ramifications were nothing to do with this person and everything to do with the festival, its promoters, and the artists who were performing there. Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. A discussion of the aftermath of a death at a rock concert is by no stretch of the imagintion a biographical article on a person's life and works. Uncle G 19:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just making the point that not all Australians feel the subject is notable. Your comment, whether it was meant to or not, could imply that was not case. Also, I am not a big fan of assuming that those non-Australians who have voted on the subject have not been able to do their own research on the notability of the subject and come to a fair conclusion. Once again, whether you meant to or not, your comment could be read to imply this.-- Mattinbgn/ talk 11:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for assuming I have not fully read this discussion. I made that comment for future voters. Riana ⁂ 11:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- You are aware that many of the editors who have suggested deletion or merging are Australian. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 11:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- The rule of thumb regarding notability is this: If topic "Foo" is not notable independently of topic "Bar" (in other words, you can't name a reason why "Foo" is notable that doesn't involve "Bar" or anything related to "Bar"), then information on "Foo" should be merged into the article on "Bar" unless there is so much information about "Foo" that it warrants its own article. Michalik is clearly not notable independently of Big Day Out, and there's not enough information on her to warrant her own article. - Chardish 04:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Except that this patently isn't true. The ramifications of this went significantly beyond the Big Day Out. Rebecca 04:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, and those issues can be discussed in an appropriate section within the BDO article. And quite frankly, the ramifications wern't as big as you're making them out to be. The person fails the required standard for notability, and the article should be merged and redirected, like every other common sense editor here has suggested. Thewinchester (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies in advance for not being a common sense editor, but can we just address WP:BIO, as that is what makes a person worthy of taking note. A person is notable if they meet any of the 10 criteria listed in that guideline. One of those is name recognition, and that is something that Jessica has. The association with BDO has no relevance to her notability. That argument would only apply to the security guard who rescued her or her friend who was stuck up the back of the event who are mentioned many times in the articles. Assize 09:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- That the person's name is recognized doesn't mean that the information that editors want to present should be presented in a form that pretends to be a biographical article of a person's life and works. The insurance liability court cases, for example, are not part of the life and works of this person. They are, however, part of the history of Big Day Out. And that is where the death of Jessica Michalik, and all of the other things that came afterwards, should be covered, presenting them in their proper context, and without the pretence that they in any way form a biography. Uncle G 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps the article could do with a lot of work, but then 99% of wikipedia could do with that as well. Badly written articles are not grounds for deletion. Perhaps I am being too Sydney-Australia-centric in this discussion, but every twenty something knows who she was, and that in my opinion meets WP:BIO and the ability to have a separate page. If you carry this to its natural extreme, John Howard should be merged into an article about prime ministers of Australia as he wouldn't be independently notable outside of being PMAssize 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- That the person's name is recognized doesn't mean that the information that editors want to present should be presented in a form that pretends to be a biographical article of a person's life and works. The insurance liability court cases, for example, are not part of the life and works of this person. They are, however, part of the history of Big Day Out. And that is where the death of Jessica Michalik, and all of the other things that came afterwards, should be covered, presenting them in their proper context, and without the pretence that they in any way form a biography. Uncle G 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies in advance for not being a common sense editor, but can we just address WP:BIO, as that is what makes a person worthy of taking note. A person is notable if they meet any of the 10 criteria listed in that guideline. One of those is name recognition, and that is something that Jessica has. The association with BDO has no relevance to her notability. That argument would only apply to the security guard who rescued her or her friend who was stuck up the back of the event who are mentioned many times in the articles. Assize 09:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, and those issues can be discussed in an appropriate section within the BDO article. And quite frankly, the ramifications wern't as big as you're making them out to be. The person fails the required standard for notability, and the article should be merged and redirected, like every other common sense editor here has suggested. Thewinchester (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Except that this patently isn't true. The ramifications of this went significantly beyond the Big Day Out. Rebecca 04:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, as Assize has pointed out, this subject does meet BIO, esp. with a yearly Jessica Michalik Contemporary Music Endowment in her name. It may never be a normal biography, but this article should remain as a central point for the event. A rename to reduce the attempt to be a BIO would be good. John Vandenberg 12:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need a rename. This ground is already covered in Big Day Out#History, and there is plenty of room in that article for further expansion on the events. All that we need is a redirect. Uncle G 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- A redirect works for me, as the endowment is also linked to the BDO, but I would prefer to see this as a separate article as I am not a fan of being sent to a long article in order to figure out who someone is, and I think it is sufficiently notable event to have its own article. John Vandenberg 13:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need a rename. This ground is already covered in Big Day Out#History, and there is plenty of room in that article for further expansion on the events. All that we need is a redirect. Uncle G 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per Orderinchaos. We shouldn't be the establishers of fame. Bulldog123 18:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Establishers of fame? I think it's already pretty established, due to the very high media attention . Rebecca 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, sources say notable. Everyking 08:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Move/Rename with redirect to Big Day Out, Sydney 2001 as Jessica is only notable due to this event, every thing that has happened is as a result. Besides Jessica the article can cover the changes to barriers for such events, the various court cases that occured. This is then not lost/hidden/unfindable in the Big Day Out article and can offer a broader range of information for those interested. note for closing admin alternative position is delete/redirect as the subject isnt independently notable. Gnangarra 11:28, 22 June 2007 (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.
