Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Parhamovich

Add links
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 No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Parhamovich

[edit]
Andrea Parhamovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

In January 2007, Andrea Parhamovich's death in Iraq was documented in dozens of newspapers. While her death is not unique, her status as a civilian killed in Iraq earned her more news coverage than the thousands of others killed in the conflict. The news was also spurred on by her boyfriend and soon-to-be-fiancée, a news reporter who later wrote a non-notable book about his relationship with her. As the article stands, it is not much more than a memorial, and a check of Google news suggests that there aren't any reliable sources to expand the article to anything more than a stub about her death. Burzmali (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand: A search in Google news comes up with more than 21 news articles. Her death was covered in the New York Times as an "American teaching democracy to Iraqis". We can disagree with the news coverage from Irak, but that's not a valid argument to delete an article.--Jmundo (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that article, aside from describing the details of her death, her boss described her. The Times didn't speak to her family, they didn't look into her past, they just reported her death and talked about the events surrounding it:
Mr. Campbell described Ms. Parhamovich as a driven young woman, inspired by politics and a desire to help Iraqis connect with their newly elected government.
He said she joined the National Democratic Institute, a nonprofit organization based in Washington that has worked in Iraq since 2003, after working for a few months with a similar group in Baghdad.
“She was an idealistic person who saw an opportunity in Iraq to help, to work with people in Iraq who were interested in democracy and human rights, which is what she cared about,” he said.
  • Delete. While there may have been lots of reports, most of those weren't independent and none of them went beyond reporting her death. Also WP:ONEEVENT applies. She's known only for her death which had no lasting impact on US perception of the war in Iraq, nor any procedures or laws inside Iraq itself. Basically a memorial, like the book her husband wrote. - Mgm|(talk) 17:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, The New York Times and Washington Post are independent sources. Second, her death did have impact, the Andi Foundation "was established in her honor to provide financial assistance for college scholarships and access to internship opportunities in politics and media." This foundation received media coverage from The New York Observer, meaning that reports went beyond her death and WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply here.--Jmundo (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's puzzling to me the rationale that since an article cannot be expanded more, it should be deleted. Look an a conventional encyclopedia, and you'll find plenty of short biographical articles about people. The person was widely reported on at the time, the facts are verifiable, and was carried in national newspapers and newswires. It also cannot be argued that the inclusion of this article harms Wikipedia. Ironically, just last night I had dinner with a friend from the UN who said she wasn't interested in being posted to Iraq, because she remembered that "NDI girl who was killed in Iraq." I'm honestly puzzled and astonished at this AfD, given Wikipedia's mission to provide the sum of all human knowledge. This falls unequivocally into that domain. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of a negative is not a positive. In other words, being harmless does not equate meeting notability requirements. Not everything that is newsworthy is of lasting encyclopedic interest to the world or to this project, and someone notable only for the circumstances of their death - even it was remarkable enough for major sources to report on - clearly fails to meet our notability requirements for people. As the guideline states, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." I would say that this biography is unwarranted. It wouldn't be in a regular general interest encyclopedia, and it doesn't meet Wikipedia's long-standing specifications for what merits inclusion. Steven Walling (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We judge this article on its merits alone, not how well it compares to whatever other subject you might choose to compare it to. However brave she may have been has nothing to do with whether she belongs in an encyclopedia. We're not a memorial site to every person who has ever done something praiseworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but "It wouldn't be in a regular general interest encyclopedia" is not a guideline Wikipedia has abided by at any time in its history that I know of. Perhaps as a criteria for inclusion ("It's in Britannica, it should be in Wikipedia too") but not as one for exclusion. In fact, one of Jimmy Wales's favorite quotes is "Because the world is radically new, the ideal encyclopedia should be radical, too." Wikipedia's aim has never been to provide an article-for-article free alternative to Britannica. Also, you misread my comment. It's not that being harmless equates to a notability requirement. It's simply pointing out that this deletion nom fails on both counts: this subject is both notable, and its inclusion does no harm. For that, it is doubly worthy of staying. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned conventional encyclopedias because you did with your "look in any conventional encyclopedia" comment. If you want to compare to conventional encyclopedias, then I'm game. If not, then let's avoid such a discussion, since I agree that we're not limited to traditional concepts. But you can't have it both ways. Either we use it as a basis for comparison or we don't. Whatever the case, we are bound by the consensus decisions of the community, and the policy about what we are not and the guideline for the notability of people both unequivocally state that the merit of bios about people famous for one event only is very shaky. Someone who was only newsworthy because of the circumstances of their death, a subject that clearly has no room to evolve past its already limited notability, is not worthy of treatment in Wikipedia. Steven Walling (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look back into my comment, it is specifically about the length of the article, and whether an entry of such short length would be found in an encyclopedia, not whether a conventional (whatever that might mean) encyclopedia would have an article about this particular person. It was not meant to imply, nor did it imply, anything more than that. For a long time, I've had issues with "Wikipedia is Not News" and "one event" as criteria for excluding subjects here, and this is perhaps one of the more obvious cases where the culture has shifted significantly in the last few years. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, you are most definitely not the only individual that dislikes those two tidbits. But the simple fact is that they remain a standing part of policy and guideline, and have for years. The place to challenge them is there, not on an AFD. Steven Walling (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm missing a policy-based reason for the nomination. Sure this isn't a memorial, but come on, we've got a NYT article an AP article and apparently a book about the event so it's pretty darn notable. Should we cover the event or the person? Eh, I'm good either way. Hobit (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week DeleteOne has to be notable for something. being killed in a war as a noncombatant is not sufficiently distinctive, unless there is something special about it. What is special here? The appropriate policy is NOT NEWS--pathetic news stories about sad events do not make the subject notable no matter how many papers cover it. is tabloiid jouralism even if the NYT Times indulges in it. (it's a pity about their standards, but they're out of our control and all we can do is to maintain our own.) , She might possibly be notable as the subject of a best selling book, and that part needs to be looked at further. The book is presently in about 600 WorldCat libraries It seems to have been reviewed or at least noticed in the NYT, which is usually reliable about books so other reviews can be looked for., If found, rewritee around the book. , not the person. DGG (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm with Hobit; I see no policy reason to delete what is, though short, a complete and relevant article. --AlisonW (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the policy reason is NOT MEMORIAL, DGG (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which just says the subject must meet notability requirements, just as every other article must. Hobit (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete. I would suggest that her information be added to an already existing and much broader article. I certainly felt emotion for the individual. However, to be notable only because of one's death is not enough. However, if that death had led to a major policy change, humanitarian endeavor or directly or indirectly saved the lives of a group of individuals it would probably pass the notability issue. Royalhistorian (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From an official United Nations website: "The murderers who ended her life and the lives of her guards also knew this very well and wanted probably to kill the freedom Andrea represents when using their tools of assassins against her. Some young men in Iraq will soon only know how to use such tools instead of those who are used to build, repair, heal, teach or harvest. These were Andrea's tools, her commitment, your collective promise."--Jmundo (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrea_Parhamovich&oldid=1070953317"