Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Almeida (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naomi Almeida

Naomi Almeida (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Completely unreferenced. Subject has no notable achievements. Never heard of her. Get rid of it. WP:NOT a memorial. Proudlyhumble07 07:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: The first AFD can be found here. —Celithemis 08:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Articles that are unreferenced should (for the most part) be tagged first before being nominated. Achievements are not the sole criteria for notablility per WP:BIO. Nominator's knowledge or lack thereof irrelevant. --Charlene 08:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just because proudlyhumble has 'never heard of her' is no reason to delete the article. She is notable for what, sadly, happened to her and there are any number of news sources which covered the case, if one bothers to actually spend ten seconds looking for them. As has been pointed out, notability is not always a matter of achievement. Just because a case didn't make the news cycle in a particular nominators home town doesn't mean that it didn't matter somewhere else in the world. There are now links to CBC news reports of the case on the article. The case was reported widely in Canada. Nick mallory 09:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This may be a WP:POINT nomination. --Charlene 11:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see anything in WP:BIO that supports this girl's notability. The only "keep" votes in the previous AfD had pretty weak arguments behind them; "she was in all Canadian news sites at the time of her murder", and a soccer field was named after her. Its very well sourced, but none of the sources explain why this girl or her tragic murder are more significant than any other girl or tragic murder. -Haikon 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Category:Murdered Canadian children is not overflowing, so it is locally notable. The nom needs to put more consideration into deleting the work of other contributors. Due diligence is required. John Vandenberg 11:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, media mention does make her technically suitable to tbe the subject of an article. But I would like to ask the same question as Haikon, "why this girl or her tragic murder are more significant than any other girl or tragic murder?". Anywayz, the article needs lot of work with references and expansion to provide more context. --soum (0_o) 11:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Even with sources, I don't see how this subject meets the requirements of WP:BIO. Being murdered, however awfully, isn't an indicator of notability. janejellyroll 11:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Tragic case of 5-year old murder victim, irrespective of legl jurisdiction, are usually deemed non-notable by plenty of previous consensus. There is a paucity of biographical information about her, and it appears there is not likely to be much more forthcoming, as her age is stacked against her having any recognition beyong having been tragically murdered. There does not appear to be any great depth of press coverage. But even one event (her murder) covered by an infinite number of press outlets would still count as "one coverage", so would appear to fail WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 08:29, 23 April 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.