Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sneha Anne Philip

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 keep. John254 23:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sneha Anne Philip

Sneha Anne Philip (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable victim of the 9/11 attacks. She DID receive a bit of press coverage a while back, but not enough to establish any notability. Jmlk17 06:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep I think you should read the articles you tagged more clearly than you seem to have. "A bit" of press coverage? It was a cover story in New York magazine, followed up by coverage of the appeals court decision a few months ago in the New York Times. I think that's two instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources right there.

When I put this up for DYK and it ran on the main page, there was ample opportunity for the community to suggest that this was a non-notable individual. No one did at that time. Suddenly we want to delete this now?

The only reason I can see for this is as part and parcel of an understandable effort to clear out truly nn 9/11 victims. But it is important to note that she is not a confirmed 9/11 victim, just someone whose whereabouts have been unknown since the night before the attack and may have been near the towers. If we didn't have the 9/11 victims cat (and, if we're going to delete all these people we might as well just get rid of the category too, since it will be too small to justify, or a magnet for continued recreation of these articles, and there certainly aren't going to be anymore 9/11 victims), I doubt we'd be having this discussion as we have kept articles on any number of missing persons with much less notability claim than her, even post-disappearance. Only because four of five appellate judges decided, using logic that would get deleted here as speculation and OR, that she had to have been at the towers because she hasn't been seen anywhere since, is she in that category.

If we're keeping Abraham Zelmanowitz, with much less media coverage over a shorter period, and a similar claim to non-notability if he weren't a 9/11 victim, we can keep this one. Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - enough independent coverage to establish notability, in my opinion. Scog (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, a notable mystery relating to 9/11, which received media coverage beginning immediately afterward and up to the recent decision to name her as a victim. --Dhartung | Talk 10:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep though I disagree with every victim having a page, I do not agree with the nom statement per Notability is not temporary, if she was notable then she is notable now. Khukri 14:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep; while she would have remained in obscurity if it were not for 9/11 and the circumstances of her case, those circumstances have attracted way more notice than we need to justify an article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:06, 27 March 2008 (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.