User talk:Agne27/Anna Svidersky "Non-memorial"

I'm putting this full version here and will post a summary on Talk:Anna Svidersky

AfD consensus

A breakdown of the two previous AfD's.

May 2006

• Closing Admin's comment "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." Despite what the box at the top of the Anna Svidersky talk pages says "No consensus" does not mean there was a consensus to Keep, just not enough consensus to delete.
• 15 editors expressed sentiments in this discussion. 9 editors expressed sentiments to keep including 2 new users who have not edited since May, 1 anon editor and two editors who simply states "notable" or "this person should have an article" with no reason to back up those sentiments. Remove those and it was 4 sentiments to keep to 6 sentiments to delete.

Of the Keep sentiments...(Summary)

• 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)
• The Guardian is a reputable source that verifies that Anna Svidersky's death has gained "worldwide attention". Tyrenius 01:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• 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. Fiwtart 21:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• 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. Rockpocket (talk) 01:42, 22 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. ALKIVAR™ 01:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Even with this first AfD it is clear that the majority of the editors expressing Keep sentiments wished for an NPOV focus on the reaction to her death and not a memorial biography of her.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Of the Delete sentiments....

• 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)
• Delete. It is tragic but Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it Wikinews. Rossami (talk) 14:02, 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.Mitch 22:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT--Peta 06:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

Comment In regards to Pavel comment I think its quite telling to go through the [26 Google archive News hits on Anna Svidersky. They are within a few month period in 2006 with only one local article in all of 2007. This is a small well of interest to begin with and the drop is only going to become considerably steeper. One thing we need to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is not meant to be "teenage-centric". Even looking at the regular google hits one is hardpress to find even a substantial minority of them belonging to sites frequented by individuals typically older then 25.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2006

In this AfD 17 editors expressed sentiments with 2 editors changing their sentiments from Keep to Merge/Redirect following the creation of the Mourning Sickness article. A third editor, while not explicitly changing their already "weak keep" sentiments, also noting that they could "go either way". A fourth editor maintained a "very weak keep". That leaves only 7 "solid" Keep sentiments of the 17.

• Closing Admin's comments "The result was keep. Please defer merge related comments to article talk." Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Follow up comments on talk page. "The Mourning sickness article does look rather comprehensive, what do we gain by keeping two articles on the same subject, and what reasons are there, if any, to oppose a redirect?" Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Of the "solid" Keep sentiments....(Summary)

• The notable element in the article is the so-called (and reliably sourced) 'mourning sickness' phenomenon, Crum375 19:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is not the fact that she was murdered that is notable, but the fact that that became an internet phenomenon. Tyrenius 21:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• If it's too much of a memorial, if it needs a rename then thrash it out on the talk page. But the level of sourcing makes it abundantly clear that this article is valid per our standards. Don't buy the rationale that it's about "mourning sickness"? Well, sorry, the sources in the article already made the call JayHenry 01:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It is well referenced. Change the name to "Murder of ..." if there is consensus on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Even though it appears that the only reason she is notable is because of the internet response to her death, she is nonetheless notable. DHowell 04:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Of the "weak keeps" and Merge/Redirect sentiments

• Weak keep. Maybe if we changed the title to "Anna Svidersky murder" or "mourning after sickness."Realkyhick 20:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mourning sickness, which is what this page is really about. Ten Pound Hammer • 10:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. I'd support a move to "Anna Svidersky murder" or similar - she's not notable, only her death/murder and the surrounding hype are because we do have some reliable sources. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• The response to the death, is and should be noted either by renaming the article (and stripping out the parts that make the article a memorial), or merging information about the "mourning sickness" to an article dealing with internet phenomena. ---- The Bethling(Talk) 01:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• I feel the best approach then is to Delete with redirect and have Anna Svidersky point to the subsection within the Mourning Sickness article about the reaction to her death. As the above sentiments (both Keep and Delete) note, she is not notable and therefore we do not need a complete biography article on her. Agne 08:28, 9 August 2007 (UT

Of the "delete only" sentiments

• But I cannot find that the article is more than a memorial, and per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Edison 02:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Almost every murder in a country with relatively low crime rate will receive lots of attention, but that does not mean it should be mentioned here. There is no historic notability in this case Corpx 03:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (i) This article is about the public reaction to the murder, not the victim of the murder. (iii) The phenomenon of 'mourning sickness' (which is only another way of describing mass grief) may be a fit subject for a article, but until it is created, this page cannot and should not serve as a substitute.--Greatest hits 05:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Change Keep to Delete Since Agne created the Mourning sickness article I see no need to keep this article since her article includes Anna Svidersky. Jmm6f488 01:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Please place comments regarding the above section below this line.