Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Anita Krajnc Case

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Anita Krajnc Case

[edit]
The Anita Krajnc Case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New article about a political activist (belongs to something called Toronto Pig Save) who has captured media attention with a stunt. Stunt: this political activist (opposes the eating of pork) created a sufficient traffic incident by offering water to pigs en route to a slaughterhouse that she managed to get herself charged with criminal mischief. Fails WP:BLP1E; a publicity stunt does not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try using "Anita Krajnc" in place of "The Anita Krajnc Case" as the search term and you will get tens of stories carried by reliable sources about the case. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change in search term yields significant results.(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mexico,[10] Italy,[11], Panama,[12] and Vietnam.[13] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Over 150,000 sign online petitions in her support according to The Guardian.[14], The Telegraph describes the case a cause célèbre for animal welfare activists. WP:BLP1E is a strawman argument because this isn't Krajnc's biography but about the case. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't sock, the IP isn't me. I've been around for too long to make such stupid mistakes. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy if someone runs a CU. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up comment: After re-reading the subsequent comments in this discussion, I have become convinced that deletion is appropriate pursuant to WP:SENSATION. Nevertheless, I think this is a close case. Although the event appears to have been "widely covered in diverse sources" (per WP:EVENTCRITERIA), I also think that the events described in this article have, to a large extent, become sensationalized by the media. This also may be a case of "the lady doth protest too much, methinks." If editors have strong arguments in deletion discussions, the strength of those arguments will speak for themselves; there is no need to repeat those arguments ad nauseam. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notecardforfree I would agree...in the absolute reverse. I am passionate about law, ethics, debates, and this case will be cited and studied, and has had international attention - that much is clear. However the comments directed at drawing suspicion and doubt of motive almost from the get-go has been very unsettling in what I felt was such an obvious inclusion. "Making the person look insincere and defensive" - yes, that is how I feel. Thank you, because no matter what, every bit of feedback improves my experiences in the future. Karyn Swaney (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While this is well designed for our modern news media, a single incident of this sort is not notable. Perhaps if she actually gets sentenced to something, and if this then devolves into a discussion of the limits of animal rights activism, then we could have an article. But "she gave water to pigs and is now charged with criminal mischief' (and that, despite the plethora of sources, is the essence of the article) is not article worthy. Even the word 'case' attached to the title is overdone because all we have is charge with no case so far. Perhaps a line or two in Animal rights activism but, at this point, even that's pushing it. --regentspark (comment) 16:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the request below, largely WP:INDISCRIMINATE but also WP:NOTNEWS.--regentspark (comment) 17:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have to explain how the subject fails Wikipedia notability guidelines - that is how we decide whether a subject merits inclusion or otherwise. Your statement doesn't address this issue. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the title, if there is a more appropriate one, please suggest so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No RP WP:NOTNEWS is about enduring notability - as I have stated in Keep statement. The case is discussed in RS for the past about three months or so, it isn't a one day mention in the press. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is about (1) Summary-only descriptions of works (2) Lyrics databases (3) Excessive listings of statistics - such as opinion poll results (4) Exhaustive logs of software updates. Sorry but both don't seem to be relevant in this case. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
YK, a few months of news reports doesn't make for enduring notability. The incident is likely to be forgotten a few months from now unless it progress to the point of an actual conviction. At best, this can be discussed as an issue in animal rights activism but even that is overkill. As I point out above, all we have is a person who gave water to a few pigs and was then charged with criminal mischief. Enduring notability will come only if something more than that happens. --regentspark (comment) 18:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable" - wp:LASTING. About 3 months and the interest in the case is unabated. How can anyone predict the outcome? Why would only a conviction be notable? Why isn't an acquittal notable? See the international impact of the case about a score countries - wp:GEOSCOPE. What you are indulging in RP is your doing wp:OR by describing the incident and claiming it is trivial like the nominator called it a stunt, that isn't for us to judge. Independent and reliable sources are interested in the case across countries and continents that have found it important enough to write about it, that is sign for us that the subject is notable. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RP May be sources covering the case feel it is no different from the trivial incident 60 years ago when a black seamstress refused to give up her seat to a white guy. One can't read other's minds. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
YK would you mind not pinging me, I obviously have this page on my watch list. I hope you're not being serious above with your reference to Rosa Parks. Just in case you are, do note that every incident has the potential to be of lasting historical significance. But, it doesn't follow that we record every incident that occurs. Rather, we wait for that significance (aka notability) to emerge because, in the vast majority of cases, it simply won't emerge. In this case, I don't see any reliable sources claiming that this is of any importance. I do see that the incident is interesting and of titillating news value. Imo, that doesn't necessarily make it notable for wikipedia. Apparently for you - and the other keep voters - it does. That's a legitimate difference of opinion and I'm not sure why this needs to devolve into a "what you are indulging in" sort of argument. --regentspark (comment) 00:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RP I believe that your personal system of beliefs plays in to why you believe this will be significant. PLEASE believe me when I say that is not an insult, just meaning you may not be fully aware of the numbers that are dramatically increasing by the day of what is being called the "next social justice movement" (hence, the Rosa Parks reference). This case is definitely very significant to a large portion of the population, even if you do not agree. To effectively conclude this would only require some simple searches into the steadily growing numbers of this population (AR, Animal Rights, Vegan, etc.). I do not say this in an effort to support or rally, I say this as an evidence-based fact. This case WILL without a doubt be used as a hallmark for a very large movement that is currently occurring across the globe. It will be referenced and researched, and in my own research of the case I have a quote from both the driver and company who pressed charges against Anita Krajnc admitting it will be significant in their decision to prosecute others in the future. Jill Phipps has an entry here on Wikipedia, deservedly so, and she is referenced often in the readings I have been doing. While understandably - she died while partaking in activism - the story has remained significant and is found frequently in years of references, as will be the case of Anita Krajnc. It would sincerely be a shame to not have Wikipedia, who I have used for many years to reference these very subjects, have no notable reference as this case progresses. Sorry for my long entry, thank you.Karyn Swaney (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which was due to new user error and nothing more, I have done a strike out on the IP entry I made that was restored, as I am obviously aware the prior version are accessible and was not hiding anything, I certainly did not realize it was a major issue as I have been honest about who I am and my errors. I am even slightly confused as I am borderline being accused of some sort of fraud and/or dishonesty. I reiterate from below - this should be decided on policy without bias, so I am clearly not expecting anything less. It is starting to feel if I reply to comments then I "protest too much" and if I stay silent then comments like yours make it appear as if I may have been 'up to something' which is simply not true. Remarks like "strange" and "weird" and "protest too much" on this thread? Rather than examine and discuss their valid statements? Perhaps I am still misunderstanding, I thought the comments and the ensuing discussion were the whole point. I write many research articles so these discussions are not unfamiliar, I have rarely been treated as if I should not speak valid discussion material for "protesting too much" (assuming that was likely directed at me). I have given nothing but respect to all and have been thankful for the guidance. This is a tough crowd, but I certainly have learned a lot. Thanks again for your help. Karyn Swaney (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs or whether I am or am not aware of the social justice movement. Whether it will or will not have lasting significance is not the issue, what matters is that there are no references that state that it does. When reliable source state that this incident has lasting significance, of course we will have an article. Until then, we shouldn't. --regentspark (comment) 21:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, above first sentence should read "won't be significant" Karyn Swaney (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RP My statements refer to the fact that a rather large population already know it has a great deal of significance, and will (as said) will be cited by many in the future. Jeff Lavigne (the driver of the truck) states, “when Anita is found guilty it will set precedence, and the next time anyone even shows up with a water bottle they will be charged.” So the question will not simply go away. The results of this pivotal trial will define how future activism is handled, but they will not simply go away. Maybe I am continuing to misunderstand, and I did read the rules, but my persistent feeling was that for those who will seek info on a factual subject such as this Wikipedia would want to have a historically accurate entry. This case is already being heavily researched and cited, and is why I ended up here in the first place. Being one who has relied many times on Wikipedia for this kind of data I would be disappointed to see it deleted, as myself and many others are already citing it, researching it, and following this case. Just the fact that I can easily count more than 40 articles and videos from all over the world spanning a period of months clearly demonstrates the need for people to be able to look up this case on such a widely available source [Wikipedia]. I can post them all but doubt anyone wants me to supply such a list here. All I am saying is because you personally may not realize its significance there are many thousands - I'd even guess millions - of those who do feel (and know) it is very significant and undoubtedly will be cited for years to come. Again was not trying to be insulting. Thanks again. Karyn Swaney (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually WP:TOOSOON can be and regularly is applied to any budding phenomenon that has not yet bloomed fully enough in terms of notability to merit an article, although it someday may. It is a primciple that can be applied to political activists, as well as the enormous number of actors, authors and wanna-be documentary film directors who self promote on wikipedia. Or try to.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Keep - the vigils have been going on since July 2011 so are clearly not a "stunt." The Save Movement has done at least 3 vigils a week for more than 4 years. The case is set to go on trial in August of 2016 and is not yet resolved, and has already gone on for some time with steady growth in public and media attention. This case will not be forgotten quickly and will ultimately set a major precedent as it is the first of its kind. This precedent and the trial, regardless of ultimate result (conviction, found not guilty, etc) will be both cited and utilized for other potential cases in the future and the information and details are significant enough to support inclusion on Wikipedia. Many are already seeking further information on this case and will be for some time to come, so it should be available to research without bias on Wikipedia.100.0.139.169 (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Karyn Swaney (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this IP also posted the same comment on the talk page for this AFD discussion under the name "KarynS," and that comment was also the user's only contribution. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment I was unable to post on this page as user name and had trouble. The fact that I am new to Wikipedia posting and made an error does not exclude my valid commentary100.0.139.169 (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment I was able to get a user name using my real name, I'd ask all to understand not everyone is an expert right off.Karyn Swaney (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RP/ E.M.Gregory: (1) RP - struck off what you find offensive, please accept my apologies. (Rusty). (2) wp:RS have used terms like "cause célèbre" and "celebrity", it seems you've not read the article, please do. Sadly EMG/ RP to me you too sound exactly like the new editor here who voted "Keep" - less to do with policy - more to do with perceived merits and your taste in the matter - WP:NOTSOAPBOX. (3) RP - I'm saying this because of the liberty our long interaction allows me to - as in other discrimination related incidents - trivialising the other/ or their issues has been a standard reaction, I'm surprised with the position you've chosen to take. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Note to User:Yogesh Khandke. You are only permitted one iVote your should strike one of your two votes (I am not counting the IP about which you were warned on your talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you think I've voted twice? Wasn't the IP allegation enough? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see now, you ran one of your comments into a previous editor's iVote, so that it looked like the iVote was yours. I have now separated your comment from his. Sorry.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just AGF. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable per policy (specific policy phrases in quotes); the “reliable sources” are thorough and well-cited in article and “multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources” have reported on it. A quick review of the citations and web searches easily demonstrates this topic has “gained significant independent coverage or recognition.” This case has already spanned a period of several months while the attention has only continued to increase (not a “dwindling mere short-term interest”). This steadily increasing attention, including commentary from celebrities and articles being published in multiple countries, clearly shows that the outside “world has already ‘taken notice of it.'" It can be easily evidenced that “that this was not a, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity” as a rather brief web search demonstrates ample evidence that Anita Krajnc has been doing these vigils for 4 years and was not seeking prosecution. Additionally, the prosecuting party is certainly serious and not interested in “stunts.” Per the prosecuting party (representing the driver), and in reading the many articles available, the consensus is that this case will be historically significant to decide how to handle these issues in the future, i.e. set a legal precedent that will continue to be referenced over time. The ultimate ruling on this case will, without a shred of doubt, be used to determine the future actions of both a rapidly growing group of activists and those who are feeling impacted by said activists . This case is going to trial in August of 2016, so will continue to be active for some time (not “short-term” and certainly not “dwindling”). The complexity of this subject has sparked questions of our humanity’s response to visceral emotions and principles and is fascinating for nonbiased discussion and sociological exploration on many levels. In light of the facts I would assert the case will hold historical significance. Speaking for myself, I came here because I was researching this subject, so I am a prime example of people who will be seeking this well-sourced article. This article should not be deleted as I feel it so clearly meets stated guidelines and is an honest and noteworthy article that will bring interest for a long time to come. Sorry for the long entry, it was important to be inclusive of what feel very much like valid points. Thank you to all. Karyn Swaney (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory I don't believe I ever logged a vote as myself...I had trouble when I initially created a user name, so I wanted the entry to be under my now-straightened-out account. I admit it is possible I am wrong and voted before as myself, because I did have some issues with format, but I didn't think I did. I apologize - I am still learning and will figure out how to strike out so I follow policy. Thanks so much. Karyn Swaney (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not realize the text was restored when I typed that, so clearly I didn't vote as myself. I was able to get a better grasp of how things work and the policies, so thank you for the guidance, many have been very helpful. Karyn Swaney (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. This AFD has gotten strange. Not only the suspect IP account from the Nom's hometown (see Nom's talk page), but the second IP account, immediately acquiring a user name and intense familiarity with this debate, which then blanks a large section of the AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory I am not from Canada where this case is taking place, so no idea who you are referring to there, as I am not that advanced to check these things. I have been doing a ton of research on this case for educational purposes, so I found this article and I was actually shocked to see it might be taken down, so I got an account, yes - but that is not "strange." I am sure most people were initially drawn to edit because of a subject that intrigued them or they felt they had input on. I am now very interested in doing other things as an editor, I just never really thought much about it before and was a little intimidated. Yes, I have many articles saved on this case - also not "strange." It is of sociological significance, and that is exactly what I am trying to say! Thanks. Karyn Swaney (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory Sorry to add - but suddenly wondering if I have misunderstood the term of Nom? I initially thought was referring to 'The Anita Krajnc Case' but in doing more reading on Wikipedia talk and codes, etc., it seems I may have misunderstood? Who is Nom? Thank you. Karyn Swaney (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory I haven't been around long enough to know what is strange or not, and clearly my mistakes did not help the matter, but none of which were anything other than errors. Disregarding new user stumbles, the only real issue was one user (deleted/restored) and a claim that someone on here may possibly live near Nom? I would assume even if lives near Nom does not discount their input. But I think the point of main importance is that this issue should be decided based on merit and policy, not geography or bias. I am sure you agree. The fact is that people ARE searching for this page, and that they will for the foreseeable future, even in law debates it is a topic of interest. The decision should be made based on policy, and a close scrutiny of the policies still makes me feel strongly the article should stay. Thanks again. Karyn Swaney (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per cites and so-far enduring notability. If the case goes away and loses its notability in a few months or a year, that may be the time for a deletion. So far the media coverage seems to be continuing (per page references). So a Keep and suggestion to revisit this later. Randy Kryn 6:29, 5 December 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Anita_Krajnc_Case&oldid=1079650662"