Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander

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. Based on a careful analysis of the arguments presented, I felt few of the reasons for deletion were compelling from a policy or guideline perspective, and many of the keep arguments were. Many brief comments citing a lack of notability for the article were unaware of the scope of coverage (local vs. national). Although an interesting comment was raised concerning International vs. United States bias, the fundamental question from this argument is: Do we remove content to counteract this bias, or do we attempt to improve coverage in other areas? It is an interesting question, but the location for this discussion is elsewhere. Coverage on a national level remains sufficient for WP:BIO.

Other notabilty concerns revolve around the notability of the target versus the event. As W.Marsh mentions, this can be solved by renaming.

Other arguments for deletion revolve around WP:NOT, particularly that Wikipedia is not a memorial or a news source. These arguments are compellingly refuted by John254's thoughtful commentary. The article does not function as a memorial to individual victims of a larger scale tragedy (cf. Virginia Tech Massacre). Contrast effects are important here when considering the scope and scale of events in real world terms. Neither has a compelling case been made for harm of living persons.

The arguments for keeping are consistent and center around the article's reliable and verifiable sources, and that the scale and scope of these sources confer notability per WP:N (at least to the event, if not the person herself). Although other arguments for keeping do cite articles on other dead white women, and this is apparently an argument that should be avoided according to some essays; the presence of these articles does indicate an overriding consensus for the inclusion of high profile murder victims should they pass the community-determined criteria for notability. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Sander[edit]

Emily Sander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
  • Delete. Notability not established, just another unfortunate murder. WWGB 22:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep A search for "Emily Sander" brings up 2000 or so results from recent news. This has captivated the attention of the American Midwest, appearing on many headlines of the largest newspapers, and becoming one of the most discussed murder cases this year. It greatly exceeds notability guidelines. EgraS 22:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Extensive nationwide US press coverage (754 plus articles on news.google.com right now) clearly demonstrates at least transient notability. Claim that at the moment she's not notable is ... silly. Georgewilliamherbert 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete Does not belong to wikipedia We cannot put each and every event into wikipedia. This one belongs to the sister project, wikinews. `'Míkka>t 23:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Under which speedy delete criterion? ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of stated notablity. Being killed is not among claims for glory, just bad luck. There are plenty of obituaries to fill wikipedia with, just open the door. `'Míkka>t 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh we only need to follow the policies he happens to agree with, I think. --W.marsh 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blatant disrespect duly noted again. `'Míkka>t 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are these comments supposed to be some kind of threat? You're the one who's called me abusive and a POV pusher. I've merely pointed out your mistaken grasp of policy here and there. --W.marsh 00:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    CSD a7: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. Now, once again I am asking: please explain why she is notable? Besides being killed is news, but hardly a fame. `'Míkka>t 02:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    She is notable because of coverage by the Houston Chronicle, Associated Press and ABC News, which the article asserts, as well as the thousands of other news stories out there right now. Whether WP:NOT's concerns about long-term importance overrides that notability is impossible to determine right now without a time machine. --W.marsh 02:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki/Delete. This is a news story, not an encyclopedia article. Being a random white woman who is murdered is not notable. Resolute 23:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't transwiki to Wikinews. It operates under an incompatible licence. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep for now; this can be addressed sans drama later. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now We are not a news aggregation. If this is deemed as important a few months for now we can reconsider, when the drama dies down. --Docg 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage by unrelated Wikipedia:Reliable sources determines notability. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now per WP:NOT#NEWS, currently it's news, if importance shows in a few months, we have WP:DRV This is a Secret account 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia does not report the news. Mr.Z-man 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per my other comments... too soon to tell so it's just more pragmatic to generate a good article now if people want to write it than turn away editors for bureaucratic reasons then hope they're around in a year or whatever if this does turn out to be important "enough". --W.marsh 23:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And she is notable for what? For being killed? How many murder cases do we have in the world daily? All of them are in most reliable sources: police reports and court cases. Coming to court cases. Petty theft and wife battering are also recorded in these same reliable court sources. How would you like to have a wikipedia article for each reported wife batterer? 23:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs)
Drop your uncivil tone Mikkalai, it's not helping you or your case any. — Save_Us_229 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Teach your buddies manners first. What exactly uncivil in my text? `'Míkka>t 00:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'll hope you also realize that court transcripts and police reports are primary, not reliable, sources. The comparison doesn't hold. Someguy1221 00:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes reliable they are. Please learn how primary sources are used in wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 00:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know how they're used. I just hope that you know they don't prove notability, and they aren't used as sources for BLP information (the perp, for that part). Someguy1221 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They can be reliable Mikkalai, but they are not prefered over news sources. If you had nothing but primary sources and it was fair quailty it might be acceptable, but secondary sources are far prefered over things like court transcripts and police reports, which are hardly anything to make an article out of. This individual was reported from multiple secondary sources, so your argument about police reports and court transcripts is moot. — Save_Us_229 00:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Many many independent news sources exist which established notability. Nobody of Consequence 04:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why have an article on Natalee Holloway? Sometimes the level of media coverage makes someone notable. This person has 1,600+ Google news results at last count... I have no idea if they'll get the absurd level of coverage needed to justify long-term importance, nobody does. But "when in doubt, don't delete" was the foundation of deletion policy on Wikipedia... some of us still believe in that for the most part. Waiting a few weeks avoids needless drama here... --W.marsh 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because even two years after her disappearance she is STILL getting mentions in the media. Yes, she is not notable in her own right, but her disappearance and the lack of information regarding her disappearance has stayed in the media's eyes for two-and-a-half years now. will381796 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean we're in 2009 now. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 16:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, she disppeared in 2005, not 2007. — Save_Us_229 17:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the article's introduction paragraph: Emily Sander (1989 - 2007), was an 18-year-old American college student and nude model reported missing on November 23, 2007 and found dead six days later. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 17:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
will381796 was talking about Natalee Holloway's notability, not Emily Sanders.. — Save_Us_229 17:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deemed notable by a very long list of completely unrelated reliable sources, so not just an isolated news story. Someguy1221 23:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per the keep reasons above. Notable subject. — Save_Us_229 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep as others -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP:NOTNEWS. She is only really notable for being a victim, I find this article and its focus on her nude modelling rather revolting, I'm very glad those disgracefully inappropriate categories have been removed. RMHED 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT doesn't fall under speedy deletion criteria. — Save_Us_229 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... And we're not censored, anyways. We have articles on notable porn stars, notable crime victims, and unfortunately Ms Sander appears to be both. Georgewilliamherbert 00:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, is any of her nude stuff still available? (I mean that on that level, for what I literally said, and nothing more, with no intended implications - I'd just like an answer).-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found some of it through Google Images, although many of the sites have taken it offline now.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 05:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read 'Not Memorial: Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. This is an individual who's murder has been published by secondary news sources and is written in a neutral point of view. So how does this article fall under 'Not Memorial' again? — Save_Us_229 00:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This woman's passing is her only claim to notability. So this article belongs in Wikinews, not Wikipedia. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 16:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - both sides are calling for a "speedy" conclusion. There's no need for that. There's obviously a debate here, so unless there's a violation of core policy do this very very slowly over 5 days.--Docg 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Mikkalai is blasting me for calling for a speedy conclusion, then calling for a speedy conclusion himself. --W.marsh 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Keep Open And Argue For A Long Time! Sorry, couldn't resist. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I quote from the oft-cited WP:NOTNEWS: "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial". There appear to be substantial sources that likely establish notability per WP:BIO. I agree that a future analysis of the sources may be appropriate and a lack of any further coverage could merit deletion. A WP:NOT#MEMORIAL argument seems silly to me, as it clearly indicates that demonstrated notability trumps any "memorial" concerns. This article meets absolutely none of the speedy deletion criteria, so those are poor quality recommendations in my opinion. — Scientizzle 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikinews & delete A sad story indeed, but odds are good that in a month this will be forgotten. She is not notable as a porn star & being murdered does not confer notability. will381796 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As said above, Wikinews apparently uses a different license so we cannot transwiki there. --W.marsh 00:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the moment, this has failed to establish itself as being more notable than any other murder. I don't disagree that there's potential there for this to become a drawn-out, tabloid-esque drama -- but it's not yet, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. The comparison to Natalie Holloway is a good example of how an article like this became significant enough to merit an article. If it becomes more significant in the future, great -- the content will be preserved in the logs. For now, it needs to go. Tijuana Brass 00:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy Delete This is news and as such belongs in wikinews. Who was Emily before she was killed? I'm not a rabid wikipedian. I don't know all the policies, etc. But as I read the article, the first thought I had was 'Why is this here?'—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.56.191 (talk • contribs) — 24.23.56.191 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • This article does not meet any speedy deletion criteria by stretch of the imagination. — Save_Us_229 01:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so I'm new around here and don't know all the policies. I've changed my comment to Delete'.
  • Delete for now. Although I usually defend articles like this, it has only been in the news for a week and has a very high likelihood of fading from memory after the case is officially solved. Unless something big happens in the case, I would just chalk this up as another instance of missing white woman syndrome (maybe the proper place for mention of her).Sectryan 01:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had just about enough of political correctness. She is notable because she was in a small community which all came to protect one of their own, not due to race. Sure, some may not like the article, but Wikipedia reports on notable events and the high amount of media coverage more than exceeds the notability guidelines. Saying it should be deleted because of the supposed missing white women syndrome is the worst reason I have seen. EgraS 01:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, I could be persuaded to revisit this at a later date, but this story has gotten some national media coverage and could be considered at least marginally encyclopedic. Mikemoto, 01:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Georgewilliamherbert. Claiming that she isn't notable as of now...just silly, as GWH said. Jonathan 02:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now. Let the tide settle, and see if WP:PSEUDO applies. Certainly there are reliable sources, but whether a biography is merited is dubious right now. Also, anyone suggesting a speedy delete does not understand the speedy deletion criteria.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the speedy delete criteria, I'm just applying WP:IAR in this case. The article isn't encyclopaedic, it adds nothing of value, it is a relatively minor news story about a murdered young woman. Its creation in my opinion does more harm than good. RMHED 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What harm will it do? EgraS 03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep An example of posthumous notability that meets WP:N as of now per above , which also means the future as well which is covered in the section WP:N#TEMP, saying she wasn't notable before death has no bearing. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 02:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC) change to relist at a later date see below.[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per national media coverage. --Born1913 03:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)— Born1913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • speedy delete This is a 2 week story. If she had not posed online we wouldn't be talking about her. I do not mean any disrespect, but that is reality.May she RIP. Historystudent2010 02:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats a pretty moot point. There are plenty of articles that are 1 day old articles about news on Wikipedia about today. Her being a porn star doesn't even make any relevance as to the main reason she has an article. — Save_Us_229 03:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep so far, the details appear slightly more sensational than the Dru Sjodin case, but there were some notable repercussions from that case, at least in North Dakota. This may turn out to be a case of a young woman who made some unfortunate choices and suffered some consequences that others in her position haven't, but at this point, it's equally possible that there may be some lasting cultural shifts because of her unfortunate death. I'm willing to give accurate and impartial updates to the page benefit of doubt until this has matured another few weeks.

joshschr 03:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldn't find the article, it appears to have been replaced with a breaking news story/memorial? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 03:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My reasons are given on the talk page. Basically I wish it wasn't notable, but it is, so it stays. Manning 03:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that

    A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

    The extensive media coverage of Emily Sander in multiple reliable sources cited in Emily_Sander#Notes clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. While WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is often misinterpreted to imply that "subjects whose notability is derived solely from the manner of their deaths are not notable for Wikipedia's purposes", the plain language of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL clarifies its purpose

    Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.

    Thus, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does actually furnish independent grounds for deletion. WP:NOT#NEWS has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. Whatever the merits of ever raising WP:NOT#NEWS in any deletion discussion without claiming serious WP:BLP issues[1], WP:NOT#NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here. Indeed, WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of Emily Sander cited in Emily_Sander#Notes would therefore suggest that this person is, indeed, an "encyclopedic subject". The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence.
  1. ^ WP:NOT#NEWS was added to WP:NOT during the controversy surrounding the events considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, admonishes editors to "[keep] in mind the harm our work might cause", and advises that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." The extent to which WP:NOT#NEWS ever applies to any articles other than biographies of living persons that present a substantial risk of causing serious embarrassment, humiliation, or other harm to their subjects is therefore doubtful. Archetypical of the sort of article that clearly qualifies for deletion under WP#NOT:NEWS would be a biography of a person whose sole claim to notability is an arrest for driving while intoxicated, where the event was only covered in two local newspapers.
John254 03:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This has been covered massively in the news media and is about as notable as notable can get. AfD has no merit. Nobody of Consequence 04:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability WWGB 04:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are we supposed to wait months and years before writing an article? This logic is a misinterpretation of the Notability policy. A short-term burst would be a couple days. This has been going on for over a week and has been covered by major news sources on a national level. Nobody of Consequence 17:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really have to say that this "missing white women" has gotten out of control. Most of the population of the USA is white, and so is the percentage of missing persons. By simple population, there will be more coverage of whites. It is another weapon used by black supremists to destroy MLK's dream of equality. Today, one has to be pro-black in order to be "non-racist". How ironic. EgraS 05:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally the last person to argue for political correctness in any sense, however, this is actually a real thing. While I believe that none of these cases are ever worthy of national level media attention, the media does focus on missing white females far above and beyond missing black women. Not only this, but white and black males are both underrepresented by coverage.[1][2] The focus is far more heavily weighted toward middle class white women. The total number of missing women reported in the media at all is far lower than the national total which means that we already know that the media chooses what cases to broadcast based on their ratings potential.[3] There is a connection between racial representation in the media and its viewing. Most people who watch the television news are the white middle class, thus, the media is going to cater to that audience plain and simple - that's called business.[4][5] --Strothra 05:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, if she is currently presumed "notable" because of all the media coverage that is taking place right now, how much time must pass from the last media mention before she is no longer "notable?" She can't be "notable" forever simply because the media sensationalizes for a couple of weeks the fact that she was a porn star that just happened to get murdered. will381796 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If third party reliable sources treat a topic as notable by providing significant coverage of it, we should not be second-guessing that determination. John254 05:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can verify that people who have obituaries in the local newspaper are dead, and I can find local news sources the find out whether or not they were murdered. Simply because I can verify these facts does not mean I should write an article about each of them. The fact that this woman has attained temporary notability due to the media's current focus on her death doesn't mean she warrants inclusion. This woman's death will sadly be forgotten by most people in a month. will381796 05:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "obituaries in the local newspaper" are not news coverage. The extensive media coverage of Emily Sander in multiple reliable sources cited in Emily_Sander#Notes is quite different from the coverage described in the hypothetical example. Furthermore, with regard to speculations relating to how long Emily Sander's notability will persist, I note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We should not countenance the deletion of articles on the basis of conjectural interpretations of future notability. John254 06:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as others make crystal ball predictions that she will be remembered in "100 years". So back to my original question: how much time must pass without any additional media coverage before she is no longer notable? I mean, her death has had no far-reaching implications (as of yet). She wasn't murdered by anybody notable. She wasn't even notable as a porn star. So if this is simply a young woman who was murdered and had her murder sensationalized, there must be a point at which we can say "she is no longer notable enough for inclusion." will381796 06:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far better decisions are made at AFD when we apply objective standards of notability such as the general notability guideline -- which, as described previously, Emily Sander clearly meets -- than when the decision to retain or delete articles turns on the entirely subjective basis of whether a sufficiently high percentage of editors happen to regard the articles' subject matter as important. John254 06:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:N#TEMP : "A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." This media coverage has only been taking place for the past 7 days. I think this qualifies as a "short burst of present news" and as such DISQUALIFIES her as meeting the guidelines of notability.will381796 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's considered the sentence quoted, emphasizing the language "does not necessarily constitute objective evidence..." This implies that "a short burst of present news coverage" could "constitute objective evidence of long-term notability", just "not necessarily". In this case, the news coverage provided in Emily_Sander#Notes is sufficient to a establish a presumption of her notability per the general notability guideline. The burden of proof then shifts to the editors supporting deletion of the article, to show, on the basis of a solid policy or guideline based rationale, sufficient in strength as to override the previously described presumption of notability, that Emily Sander is not notable anyway (and not just "not necessarily" notable). John254 06:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable person. Will be noteworthy of coverage, even in 100 years; clearly passes guidelines. The Evil Spartan 05:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:N : "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Massive short-term media coverage does not confer notability just like a lack of media coverage following a long period of media coverage does not remove notability. will381796 06:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we were to accept conjectural predictions of future non-notability, as asserted by many editors supporting deletion, projections of future notability would be no less valid. John254 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to conjecture about the future. She's one of the more notable kidnapping deaths in the United States this year. This type of person is already notable, and by the information about this death will be notable in 60 years simply because it was notable now. The Evil Spartan 06:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? Your very argument above, "Will be noteworthy of coverage, even in 100 years," is pure conjecture substantiated in nothing. --Strothra 06:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that everybody that has received this kind of media coverage in the past has ended up being notable in the future. And again, the person passes WP:BIO with flying colors; just because the person is dead doesn't mean we should throw it out as a memorial. The Evil Spartan 07:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the 'Not a Memorial' section: Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Please point out the section that does this anymore than any other deceased individual.. — Save_Us_229 09:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She fails to meet the WP:N guidelines for a notable pornographic actress. will381796 06:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the only thing she's notable for though. This article is primarly about the subject, the subject is notable as being a pornographic actress and being murdered and the murder recieving national attention. — Save_Us_229 07:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How was she notable as a porn actress when her website was only operational for a matter of weeks? --Strothra 07:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She had 30,000 subscribers paying $40 a month. That is clearly notable. EgraS 07:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know those numbers are notable? Do we have subscription statistics of other comparable pornographic websites? Is this number average, below average, or above average for these websites? Without that information, one cannot know if 30,000 is a notable figure. For instance, a community little league team might have a fanbase of 500 which, on the surface, seems like a lot of people. However, when compared to a minor league team which might have a fan base of about 15-20,000 it is not notable at all. --Strothra 07:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, clearly notable based on major news coverage. Everyking 07:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The case has attracted wide and significant coverage ensuring that there is plenty of material to write an article on. Capitalistroadster 08:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newsworthy doesn't equal encyclopedic notability. It's very sad, but in a year, no one but her friends and family are going to remember her. This is only headline news, because one detail, which police are arguing is irrelevant to her murder, involves nude modeling. I'd be willing to change to keep, if someone could argue what she's done that is notable besides taking some nude pics and being murdered. AniMate 08:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- since I am certain the closing admin will respond with "the result was no firm judgement made" (meaning we're just flapping our gums), I'll be an asshole and say this: can we find some free-license dirty shots from her secret career? Guroadrunner 08:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be an asshole in response, but your not going to be putting dirty shots of this individual on her article, which is mostly about her death. We already have an image of her, and that is enough. We don't even try and find free-license images of pornstar's dirty images in general, and even if we did, we wouldn't plaster them all over the articles. If your looking for a porn site I suggest you get off Wikipedia because were not going to go looking for material for your amusment, especially of the deceased. — Save_Us_229 08:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a blatant anti-necrophilia remark. Attempted WP:POINT. (Actually, I just find it funny you took my post seriously) Guroadrunner 11:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it funny that you thought you were funny to begin with, because you weren't. — Save_Us_229 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wait a few weeks, then decide I changed my mind. If it is in national news it doesn't hurt to have an article. If it is still news in a month, we've got the article in place. If it isn't news in a month, the deletionists can have their crack. Delete latest entry in the white chick of the month club SchmuckyTheCat 08:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I must have forgotten Wikipedia:No missing white females policy. Are you actually going to be citing a policy cause I'm sick of the non-reason reason's people are giving. — Save_Us_229 09:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this still gets press play in a month then recreate it. SchmuckyTheCat
Is there a month rule I don't know about? We have an article on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis that happened today. Are you telling me that we should wait a month to see if it should appear in the headlines a month from now and then it get an article? — Save_Us_229 09:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes we ignore rules because we want to see long term signifigance. Hillary Clinton is a much larger issue than another dead white girl. The "wait a month" thing is just an arbitrary cooling off period to see that the issue needs to be remembered. If there is still press about it in a month, or if gets EVEN BIGGER during the week, I'll back you 100% to keep it. Wait and see, that's what I'm saying. SchmuckyTheCat
That hostage crisis doesn't have any "historical" or "long-term" notability either. It will be forgotten in the same sense that this case will. Nevertheless, they are both quite notable and appropriate subjects for articles because they have far surpassed the level of press coverage necessary to demonstrate that they are considered significant. Everyking 04:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep - this the existance of the hostage crisis as an article on Wiki is irrelevant to this discussion. --Strothra 04:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage from major news outlets. Lugnuts 10:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of reliable sources so article can exist, potential to redirect to a non biography article. Catchpole 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Tragic as this murder is, it is a news story pure and simple. The victim is not famous/notorious to any degree, and does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. User:Bazmchat 15.01, 1 December 2007
  • Delete and place a soft redirect to the appropriate Wikinews article. When we have some indication of long-term significance (as opposed to ZOMG! Dead girl is teh pr0n star!) then we can think again. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes I am the one who began this article but I started it because I believed it deserved to be here. This article already got a speedy keep. The story has been covered by major news media and Sander was known before the murder. It is definitely notable. It's true that not every death gets national coverage, which is why every death or even murder is not in Wikipedia. Sometimes a murder doesn't even get reported in a major newspaper that covers the area where it occurred. But this death did get national coverage and is still getting it. As I'm writing this, this discussion is 37 kilobytes long--and it only began less than 24 hours ago. While that is not an official reason to keep the article, it certainly shows that people are interested in this story! Toyalla 16:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, it's an indicator that people actually check the list of current AfD's. Also, note that the speedy keep was for this exact deletion discussion, but the decision was speedily overturned. --Strothra 16:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many articles listed in AfD that got five or six comments in an entire week. This has gotten dozens in less than a day. That's a bit different, I think. Toyalla 16:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know it's not required, but it would be nice if whoever tags an article for deletion follow the suggestion which is included with the tag "4. Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing (a notice--I removed the command symbols so it wouldn't mess up this page) on their talk page(s)." I wasn't notified, and as the beginner of this article it would have been nice. :-) Toyalla 16:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is certainly recommended that people nominating an article for deletion notify the creator and major contributors, but I highly recommend that you watchlist articles you have created or that you are otherwise interested in. Besides AFD nominations there is vandalism and unwise or POV revisions to be dealt with, and those persons will rarely notify you they have sandalized or butchered the article you created or edited. Edison 02:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this AfD has gained more attention than any of the previous 500, and I checked every one. This alone shows that it is noteworthy, and that there is significant enough interest to merit keeping the article. EgraS 04:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficient notoriety. If this article is to stand then there appears to be virtually no criteria for entry. Regretable circumstances but emotion is not the rule here. Richard Avery 17:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is silly. Look at the list of references in this article! I don't really edit much anymore, but I feel I must support what is right in this case. Every time something like this happens, we get the people who want to "respect the dead" by deleting articles about them, or people who think someone covered by multitudes of reliable third party sources aren't notable because its "just another case of a dead white woman". What if someone were to say Emmett Till was just another case of a dead Black person? He's black and he was murdered, but the fact that he was murdered and covered in the news media is what made him notable (his importance to the equality movement came later). Otherwise, he was just a regular teenage black kid, same as anyone else. Racism on Wikipedia is one of the reasons I haven't edited in ages. Sander's race has absolutely nothing to do with her notability, which is clearly established. TheQuandry 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The fact that articles exist for other high-profile murder victims (Natale Holloway, Sandra Levy, some of the more well-achieved victims of high-profile disasters, etc) means that, if a murder case makes national news, it's fair game for an article. Death can and does render people famous and/or relevant. Wikipedia has an inherently democratic nature to it, so if it's something people are sincerely interested in reading about (and clearly they are) then it should stay until the case becomes trivial due to passage of time. Wikipedia is intended to be a reference for people to look up information on topics of interest; she is currently a topic of interest, and I'm sure her Wiki article has received MANY hits, so it should stay on if, for nothing else, for the mass public interest in the case- even if people are only interested in the fact that she was an online nude model. But hey, most high-profile cases gather attention because someone involved was wealthy or beautiful or otherwise sordidly interesting. There are murders and disappearences every day that hardly get a tagline in local newspapers. A story or a person is only as important as the mass public perceives it to be. This case is perceived to be of importance, so it should stay until that's no longer the case and nobody's bothering to search for or read the article anymore. --71.235.157.226 20:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)— 71.235.157.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete: As many people are saying, we'll have to do this anyway three months down the road. Subject has zero notability beyond that, as Guy aptly phrased it, "ZOMG, she did p*o*r*n!! ... and there is nothing suggesting that this is a "high-profile case" beyond that this is the Scandalous Sweet Young Thing Murder of the week.  RGTraynor  21:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most articles are truly interested in finding the suspect, and have only mentioned her career as a porn star as an afterthought. It is her death that has attracted far more attention. As a poster mentioned above, this has achieved notability now, and is far too important to not be included.
  • Relist at a later date: Come on people, are we actually gonna get consensus by putting this up now? Let's wait a month or two for the flurry to die down, then we can actually see if this merits an article. Wizardman 22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It clearly meets every definition on this site for notability. EgraS 04:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Wannabe porn star gets picked up (or picks up someone) in a bar, leaves with him and gets killed. Where's the notability in that? Cut through the titillation and the voyeuristic element and it is just another sad case of a young life cut short. Let's try to elevate Wikipedia above the level of The National Enquirer. Krford 23:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Changing to Rename - see below.[reply]

  • I detect some animosity there toward Sander. This news has been reported by almost every major newspaper, even in the headlines such as in the Houston Times. EgraS 04:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Death of Emily Sander or Murder of Emily Sander. I now agree that this case has too much attention to be deleted. I still believe that Sander herself is not notable; it is the circumstances of her death that have achieved notability. Krford (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can see both perspectives, but this is maybe covered by WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events[...] Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." I think only the loosest assessments of "historical notability" could sway for inclusion here.Brokethebank 23:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This news has occupied the mind of the entire Midwest. It will be mentioned again and again in the future, just like Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson. EgraS 04:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the event has national news coverage in multiple reliable sources—this is our objective standard for inclusion. Not to mention the extra notability for her pornography career! — brighterorange (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The murdered individual was not notable prior to her unfortunate death and fails WP:BIO. Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Delete because Wikipedia is not a memorial site for the unfortunate deaths of young people. A brief flurry of news articles following a violent crime clearly shows that the crime is newsworthy but not necessarily that it has the notability needed to justify a permanent place in an encyclopedia. In any event, articles such as this should be titles "Murder of Emily Sanders" because it is the crime which has the news coverage, not the 18 year old woman. Before her death she was clearly not notable as a nude model. Edison 02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with you there. First of all, no news source has confirmed that she was murdered, although it is confirmed she's dead. And the number of news articles has stayed relatively constant since she disappeared. This case is not going away, and has attracted increased attention even as this proposed deletion is being discussed. The entry is no memorial, rather it does have all the hallmarks of an article. EgraS 04:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have one response for everyone who's called this a case of the supposed missing white women syndrome. First, the "syndrome" itself is disputed. Second, even if it were true, it's not Wikipedia's job to delete articles because of it. It is only Wikipedia's function to create articles that, like Sander, has gained notability. And because of the "syndrome" or not, this has gained far more fame than most murders. The press and perhaps the people have determined the importance of the subject. Therefore, it must be kept. EgraS 05:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2. I think you need to chill out for a while. You have already made over 60 posts on this topic in less than two days. Stop trying to dominate the debate, and give others some credit for independent thought. WWGB 05:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MWWS is a scar on this site more than any other article. You will not shut me up for opposition to this arbitrary "syndrome". EgraS 07:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

  • Keep without prejudice. First, the subject is clearly verifiable, since there are multiple citations. Given that there is significant attention in the media, I think that - at least currently - she meets the notability criteria. Note that 1) I consider the nomination good faith, so a speedy keep is inappropriate, and 2) my "without prejudice" comment means that this debate may warrant being revisted in the future (six months? a year?) to determine whether she is still notable. —C.Fred (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the verifiability thing is obviously a non-issue and I do believe this person is notable per WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira 08:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. --Tom 14:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Other high profile murder victims, such as Natale Holloway, receive full, detailed articles. There is sufficient national news coverage on this incident that it can be on par with other cases on Wikipedia. Per other comments above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Under which of the Wikipedia:Speedy keep criteria is this article eligible for a speedy keep? It clearly fails #1 and #4, it fails #2, and no evidence has been presented for #3. —C.Fred (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at a later date: per Wizardman. this is a valid debate, but there isn't going to be a consensus right now. should be closed as no consensus (without prejudice) at the end of this process .▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 17:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Death of Emily Sander. She is not notable; but her death (and possible murder) is. BlueValour 20:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with this course of action more than simply keeping this article. It is, afterall, her death that has gained the media's attention and not her actions while she was alive. She alone is non-notable. will381796 21:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: not encyclopedic topic. The person has no personal notability. Sometimes murders become landmark cases: precedents of Law, request in parliament/congress, etc. This one is a piece of sad, but merely newspaper news. Mukadderat 21:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have Wikinews for a reason. It was made for things that have brief spurts of coverage but no long-term historical significance. It'd be ok to recreate this if sources still talk about this six months or a year down the line. Spellcast 21:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple (hundreds of) non-trivial mentions in reliable sources, so clearly notable. As always, notability on Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. I don't personally think she should have become notable, because her murder is not particularly unique or exceptional, but the fact remains that she has become notable, because the rest of the world does not ask my permission before deciding what to take note of. So therefore, we should have an article on it. --Delirium 22:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a news source. This would be appropriate for Wikinews, but not for here. Nothing that shows the person is notable (the case may not even be notable as there is no evidence it caused any major changes in existing policies). The sources are about the case, not the person; notability is not inherited. --Coredesat 22:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't that more an argument to move to a Murder of Emily Sander article than to delete this one? We generally don't delete and start over whenever someone suggests a new pagename. --W.marsh 22:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The case itself may not be notable. All the sources are incidental. --Coredesat 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1,700 publications incidentally carried articles about the topic? As if by accident? Incidental coverage means they were writing about something else but happened to mention this in passing... it's hard to fathom that 1,700 articles about this topic only ever mentioned it in passing and were actually about other things. Also you say "may", what ever happened to "when in doubt, don't delete" - founding element of our deletion policy? --W.marsh 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quote from the AP written in December 30th's edition of the San Antonio Express News: "Sander's case drew wide attention after it was revealed that she appeared nude on a popular adult Website under the name Zoey Zane." Her story was not important enough for mentioning in the news until the media caught wind of the COMPLETELY UNRELATED fact that she was also a wanna-be porn star. Sex sells, hence why all the media coverage. She is still, on her own, not a notable person. will381796 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like to think inclusion isn't just about picking the stories we would have reported on if we were newspaper editors. We aren't, and only including WP articles on topics we think deserved the coverage they got leads straight to bias. --W.marsh 23:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This case wasn't important to the media before the porn issue came to light. We're not being biased; if this is what the sources say, then the case was definitely not notable before this rather insignificant detail was found. --Coredesat 23:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So it's not biased to exclude an article just because it is related to porn? That sounds exactly like bias. --W.marsh 23:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nobody is saying "exclude her because she's related to porn." We're saying that she was a non-notable porn star who just happened to get murdered. She wasn't important enough for the media to focus all of their attention on until it came to light that she was in porn. The AP even admits that it wasn't until her "secret life" became known that she got all of the attention. Then...all of a sudden...she's all over the news. Doesn't this sound like news sources publishing something they think will sell papers and get viewers? will381796 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are aware the article is titled 'Emily Sander', not 'Murder of Emily Sander', correct? The fact that she is more notable because of her involvement in pornography is a pretty explicit argument to keep the article, not to delete it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • And you are aware that WP has guidelines for what makes a pornographic actor or actress notable, right? She fails those guidelines. Being a non-notable pornographic actress who was unfortunately (and as of right now completely un-relatedly) murdered still makes you non-notable. Should it develop that her relation to porn was related to her death, then fine. That's different. But as of now its completely un-related. will381796 07:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Those sub-guidelines exist to establish conditions under which we can assume notability without the subject's obviously passing the general notability guideline. Failing to satisfy the specific conditions for its subject type does not negate the subject's notability if it still qualifies under the general notability guideline. Indeed, you'll notice that all of the sub-guidelines include the nutshell of WP:N. Someguy1221 08:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just so we can be clear, you're saying that she would have a greater claim to notability if she received all this attention as a murder victim who wasn't a porn star? Being a porn star invalidates the press coverage that would ordinarily establish notability, because we have to factor in the media's motives for reporting a story (sex sells)? The point is that she received a high degree of attention from the media, not who she was or what she did to receive that attention. For our purposes it is utterly irrelevant if the media took note of this story because there was a porn aspect involved; the attention is what matters, not the reason for the attention. We cannot judge what is and what is not notable based on our opinion of people's motives for caring about it. Everyking 07:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm saying she'd have NO notability whatsoever (as the media was not focusing ANY attention on this young woman until it was discovered she was also a porn star). She's notable because of her death. I sadly understand the reality of our society and see that a murder, while tragic, isn't anything out of the ordinary or worthy of great national coverage. I don't care if she was a stipper, a porn star, worked at Jack-in-the Box or was unemployed. Had she not died, then at this time she would not yet be notable per WP:BIO. Had she not been a porn star, she wouldn't have had her death so sensationalized by the media. But who am I to argue with "guidelines?" I hold "GoogleNews" source counts with great skepticism. I believe that many of the "thousands" of media mentions are simply regurgitations and re-prints of AP articles. Obviously the interpretation of others so far outweighs my interpretation. But thankfully I have more important things to do than go and "count the number of independent sources." I'm glad to see that notability is now simply a matter of the amount of media coverage. No historical significance need be analyzed whatsoever. It is great to see where WP has gone in the few months since I was last active in AfD. Whatever. I am trying my best to abide by WP:DGAF. will381796 07:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are these "1700 sources" all different? Or are 90% just a copy of a newswire report used in different newspapers? Mr.Z-man 23:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's hard to tell with Google News but many are different stories [6] WP:N only specifies multiple, it doesn't say 2,000+ or something. --W.marsh 23:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep now/Delete later". This is all over the news so it makes sense to keep this as long as there is coverage/investigation being done. But after it's all over, no one's going to care anymore, so delete it then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flytrap (talk • contribs) 03:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ravenna1961 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But this isn't a news report or a memorial. It's an actual article. Nobody of Consequence 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Delirium, also this meets notability requirement definitely! I actually came here because i saw something on the news and wanted to see if there was an article and there is clearly one. the subject meets WP:N. saying article should be delete because she wont be covered later on in the press is crystal balling. Elbowdrop 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable when she was alive, not notable as a dead person either. All she did was post nude pics on the internet and get murdered, and it's not like that doesn't happen to thousands of other people every year. Move to wikinews. --carelesshx talk 04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the first time I've heard of a hot chick posing for pics nude then getting murdered after a few months... --Howard the Duck 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Widely reported. If you people still want to make this article not about the person, retitle it to "Murder of Emily Sander" like what was applied on "Disappearance of Madeleine McCann". (Heck we even have Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann...) --Howard the Duck 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not the job of Wikipedia to decide why something's notable, only that it is. Hundreds or thousands of news accounts certainly makes it notable. And we can't call this "Murder of Emily Sander" because it's not been announced that she was murdered--the cause of death hasn't even been released yet. Binky The WonderSkull 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, Death of Emily Sander is an acceptable title for me. --Howard the Duck 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The strongest case of notability has been made for her death...not herself as a person. will381796 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is actually about her murder, with her online activity detailed in a shorter section. Nevertheless, deleting this article would be tantamount to violating WP:N so renaming it won't be that much of a problem. --Howard the Duck 08:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some research and the nearest recent parallel that I can find is Murder of Meredith Kercher. If we can get consensus for this page to be moved then it would need restructuring (which I am happy to do) involving removing the bio infobox, changing the cats and rewriting the lead. A summary of the bio would then conveniently go as a reference section at the end. BlueValour (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the designer of her site said "She actually was one of the highest-climbing Web sites I had ever seen. It was amazing; it was incredible." That should help establish her notability. Nobody of Consequence 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really, the designer of a website saying how great it is is like a PR firm saying how good their clients' products are. Mr.Z-man 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He wasn't actually talking about how great the site was, he was talking about how popular the site was. He doesn't atand to gain anything more anyway, particularly since he took her photos down (whereas he could have left them up and probably become hugely wealthy.) Nobody of Consequence 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN person --Cjs56 21:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's notable in two ways: she's a (presumed) murder victim whose death led the news across America, and she's an internet celebrity. We have articles for hundreds of each of those. The fact that the two things are related doesn't diminish the significance of either.--Mike Selinker 01:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"internet celebrity" you are kidding, right?? --Tom (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Simply put, she has no historical importance.68.244.95.182 07:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is almost certainly going to closed as no consensus, but we could try for another AfD in a month's time when less people care about the article's subject.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The most representative decision is going to come at the time when more people care about it. It certainly should not be renominated in only a month; that's a classic recipe for deletionists getting rid of something after it falls off of most people's radar screens. If this is closed as keep or no consensus, the issue should not be raised again for a considerable length of time. Everyking (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: If it falls off radar screens, that would mean that people don't really care as much as all of that. As it is, I note that this supposedly highly notable case has already dropped off the media's radar screens.  RGTraynor  14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The danger in a subsequent nom is that people who care about the subject may have become sparse, leaving the outcome in the hands of group of deletionist-leaning AfD regulars who are not interested in the subject itself, but merely in "pruning" Wikipedia's content. Such a nom would be nowhere near as representative as the current nom. It is irrelevant whether or not the story remains in the media at the present time; it has already achieved its notability, which lasts forever. Everyking (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - A 100 people are murdered everyday in the U.S., and how many world wide? Are you going to start an article for every person murdered in the world everyday? 4.240.201.1 (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, just the ones that satisfy the notability guideline. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While it's sad that a girl has died, it really is non-notable (although her family and friends would, of course, disagree). This is purely a local news story (it certainly hasn't made it to the UK). -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even barring the mention in the Sun provided above, this is actually a national news story, not a local one. The AP and newspapers across the country have covered it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know about the UK, but this story has been reported in the United States, Mexico, and even Canada (see the current version of the article for a Canadian source). That makes it international. Besides, where does it say notabily mean it has to be an international story? Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. She died. That is only local news. Nothing special. People are killed every day. Metal Head (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not a local story, it's a national story. And people are notable if they fulfill WP:N, which this person does based on the many reliable third-party references. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different outcome in different articles. Lansing Bennett was a CIA employee who was murdered by a Pakistani gunman on a rampage to kill CIA employees. There was international news coverage, not just US coverage. The article was deleted (but some of the content merged). The Baby Grace article Riley Ann Sawyers is another murder but this has not been selected for AFD. For now, I am not mentioning if I think this is a delete or keep because of my involvement in the Lansing Bennett debate. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't believe the Lansing Bennett comparison is significant, as Emily Sander's death was not part of some larger story. If it fit clearly into some other article, I don't think there would be much discussion here. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what to think but as I've just said whilst looking at the Meredith Kercher article, it's a depressing prospect that sensation lovers are leading an encyclopedia by the nose. Allowing the media to determine what is and isn't notable is a bad joke.... I bet we wouldn't be having this arguement if it was an ugly middle aged man who had been murdered. I think that WP needs to establish a specific guideline - I've no idea how to go about it. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a well-presented article with numerous reliable references. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the problem with establishing a guideline is that there would be no consensus on it. Since even this fairly obviously significant article is contested, what will we agree on? Decision from a random number table? DGG (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I think think some of the comments on this board are blatantly disrespectful to victims of crimes. Yes Ms. Sander is not the first victim of a crime. Her story is told over and over again in the murders of women everywhere. Besides Children women are the most victimized in society. My wife and three daughters are growing up in a world where Males seem to have horrible control issues. This story was important and continues to be important but not for the reasons most people seem to hang on to. The fact this young lady posed nude on the internet should not be the focus. Yes it probally was a mistake but not one she should die over. This case should stay a topic until the killer is brought to justice. Perhaps not such a big story as it is now but a story none the less. I just hope the porn star accusations will go away. Despite what others may think Emily was not a porn star. She was no more a porn star than a playboy plamate. No one calls those girls porn stars. We live in a world of hypocrites. They call Emily a porn star in the press and go in their own homes and hotels and watch porn movies behind closed doors. Shame on society. Emily was a human being and did not deserve her fate. Good Day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.15.221 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (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/Emily_Sander&oldid=1219345946"