Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Le - Wikipedia


Article Images
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, early close per WP:SNOW, no way that there will be a consensus to delete given what we have so far. Note that article has been moved to Murder of Annie Le. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Le (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There appears to be no claim of notability here. A lot of people go missing all the time why is this person different? Later events may show some sort of notability but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. While it's only a guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event would seem to apply. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. A lot of people go missing, yes, but most people who go missing do not get massive (national) news coverage, as she did/does. She meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability because of all the media coverage she has already received over the past week and is continuing to receive. This is one of those big disappearance stories that hits every once in a while. —Lowellian (reply) 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Agree with User:ArcAngel (as suggested by my vote above), but I want to elaborate/clarify one thing: Not just 10 times (that would be 15,000), more like 100 times -- there are 233,000 hits for the phrase "annie le" as I write this comment; even after attempting to filter against other persons with the same name by searching simultaneously with the keyword "yale", we still get 114,000 hits, and that's just within one week of her disappearance. Also, I'm seeing 3000+ articles on Google News. —Lowellian (reply) 04:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, looks like it's a time issue, since I did my search later than you did. The numbers just keep growing as the news story itself keeps growing. They're up to over 5,000 now on Google News. —Lowellian (reply) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When I wanted a concise rundown on Le, the first place I came was Wikipedia—articles like this are one of the many facets of Wikipedia that make it so useful. I agree that the wide coverage of the incident makes this person notable enough for an article, at least for the time being. Jim_Lockhart (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing this article from a focus on Annie Le's biography to an event-oriented view. The article I cited above does the same. ~Eliz81(C) 19:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The news coverage really has been significant--it's at least worth waiting to see what details emerge. And the details are pretty strange as it is. The Yale association also makes it a part of the history of one of the most important universities in the country. --Longwoodprof (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It makes Wikipedia look really ridiculous and amateurish that every time someone comes here for an encyclopedic recount of an event receiving extensive national news coverage that somebody has tagged it for deletion (after apparently doing 0 hours, 0 minutes, and 0 seconds of research to determine whether or not it's an extremely and obviously notable national story). This is an extremely notable event, being a dominant news item across the nation. It will obviously be something that affects Yale University's identity for a generation (if you disagree, let's place a wager). --209.37.216.66 (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does it mean "!votes"? And why are my arguments any less valid because I don't have an account? This does not seem sensible and should be revisited. I have read the notability rules and the "Not News" rules and believe I have correctly interpreted them, and that seems unrelated to whether or not I have an account. --209.37.216.66 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to be a pest, but I don't understand. That section says: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Thus I suggested a course of action (keep) and followed it with arguments. The section further says "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." But I did not misrepresent my reasons and am not acting in bad faith. I suppose I should return to watching Web 2.0 rather than attempting to participate.This article I read recently, which notes Wikipedia's inscrutable elite, seems apt. --209.37.216.66 (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus says that !votes (Keep, Delete, Merge, Support, Oppose, Neutral, etc.) aren't "counted" when made by IP editors in any type of discussion where "voting" takes place, such as here. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. ArcAngel (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an admin, but I'm not aware of any policy that states that. Anonymous users are allowed to comment at AFD; their comments may be discounted, but only if there's reason to believe they're a sockpuppet or single-purpose account. I see no evidence of that here. See the Guide to Deletion. Robofish (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clarifying on my talk page that IP votes are not counted at RFA, not here. I hereby apologize to the IP if I came across brusk or otherwise incivil, I have restored your !vote. ArcAngel (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole little spat is perfect evidence of why a vast number of possible contributors keep the heck away from editing W'Pedia. TinPot ArcAngel, who struggles to spell 'brusque', trashing entirely sensible and legitimate input from another user, for spurious reasons. Then backing down, taking a huge amount of unconstructive time. Can you regular editors start monitoring your own, please, rather than aggressively singling out competent but less regular contributors? Sigh. (My substantive input below; this, on the process of the debate; do NOT delete, ArcAngel or similar.) Jmanooch (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep, but rename to "Murder of Annie Le" or "Death of Annie Le". This is quite notable ... as an event ... not as a biography of Miss Le. The deletionists here on Wikipedia will only be satisfied once each and every article on Wikipedia is deleted. And maybe not even then. Unreal. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 14 September 2009)
!vote by block-evading IP sockpuppet of indef'd User:Joseph A. Spadaro struck. Tim Song (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
umm, ok, but it might as well keep its dot. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quoting the creater of this deletion entry: "A lot of people go missing all the time why is this person different? Later events may show some sort of notability"... it's later; she's dead; 'nuff said... ColdCase (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is unquestionably keep at this point. However, because she became notable due to her bizarre murder and because police have ruled it a homicide, a move to Murder of Annie Le seems warranted.--Eightofnine (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Move: I concur with Mercurywoodrose, Eightofnine, etc. The event has been widely covered so it should be kept, but also renamed; it is the event, not the victim, that received wide coverage. Move to Murder of Annie Le. -- Noj r (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • - The BBC covers it and it is not a British related story. That says something. By Wikipedia practice, the article, if kept, should be called "Murder of Annie Le". Suzanne Jovin gives us some guidance. That is a Yale murder. However, that did not go through an AFD so we have no idea where that is an "other crap exists" or not. As for my own opinion, I am not sure. It is definitely not "definitely notable" but has some notability leanings due to the British coverage.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, internationally covered story. No opinion about the renaming. If the article were moved, would Annie Le become a redirect? LovesMacs (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This is a notable story and current event, and wikipedia provides an important service by offering readers a convenient way to follow its developments. It is, after all, the first murder at Yale in years and certainly one of the most unusual stories about a student disappearance that I've ever heard. I agree though that it could be renamed. JohnnyCalifornia 23:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A decent article on the murder of Annie Le will be referenced for years to come. Cf. the Suzanne Jovin case. Are you saying we have to wait a few years before we can decide whether articles are notable or not? Ridiculous. 75.197.110.237 (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add a note. I already voted for deletion, but I must take umbrage with the comment by editor ColdCase, to wit, Quoting the creater of this deletion entry: "A lot of people go missing all the time why is this person different? Later events may show some sort of notability" [...] "it's later; she's dead; 'nuff said..." as seriously flawed and illogical. Being dead does not confer notability. I am really surprised at the number of keep votes; I hope sentimentality is not the guiding force behind them, because it is plain that, alive, Annie Le would be deemed as lacking WP:NOTABILITY in a New York second. If the article is kept it should be changed to Death of Annie Le or Murder of Annie Le. And if that means deleting Suzanne Jovin and Sinedu Tadesse for the sake of fairness, so be it. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned by the "tragic and touching to people" bit—hopefully everyone has not too much of an emotional attachment to this person that it is swaying opinion in favour of "keep" rather than judging it on its notability. --candle•wicke 01:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They might? Is this verifiable though? --candle•wicke 01:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Nothing makes this one stand out from the rest"? Really? Not the intense nation-wide media coverage, far above the norm for most murders? Not that it took place at an Ivy League university? Then by your standards, what would it take to make a murder "notable" enough for Wikipedia? —Lowellian (reply) 03:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • String Delete. Per Ronhjones. --98.182.55.163 (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. News coverage of the news coverage: NBC Producer Trampled At Annie Le "Briefing". Analysis of the intersection of the Jaycee Dugard and Annie Le cases. Abductive (reasoning) 00:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Count is (at this point) 30 keep, 10 deletes, and a couple keep/moves. Recommend close, and discuss any remaining issues on the talk. -Stevertigo 03:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sometimes a murder becomes an event tightly bound up with the history of an institution. Just like the Suzanne Jovin murder in 1988 was an event that profoundly influenced the university experience of every student and faculty member at Yale at that time (and for several years afterwards), so will Annie Le's murder be a significant event repeatedly referred to by the current generation of Yale students and faculty. Countless members of the Yale community will come to Wikipedia looking for a clear and unbiased source of the facts of the case. I second Stevertigo's recommendation that the AfD be closed. —SaxTeacher (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand apparently an event being reported repeatedly on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times, New York Daily News, Newsday, Washington Post ect is not grounds for notability. I mean I can understand if it was mentioned once on the local news but this has been on national TV and newspaper headlines day in and day out. RiseRobotRise (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Keeping with the fact that Suzanne Jovin article meets notability requirements, then given the amount of reliably sourced news article about the missing turned homicide case then this case should meet the requirement required. However, that being said if the policy WP:NOT#NEWS is expanded then this proposal for deletion should be revisited. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The location/context, volume of coverage, and sensational nature of the killing all suggest that the event merits space on Wikipedia. A question for those supporting their arguments to delete on the grounds that we cannot know if this will continue to meet notability criteria after some time has elapsed: why should that counsel in favor of deleting the article now, rather than keeping it until such time as it becomes clear that it is no longer notable? In other words, why the strong presumption against long-term notability? SS451 (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that every time an event like this occurs (no matter where or which country) it should be kept because it might possibly achieve long-term notability but we don't know that yet so it ought to be kept just in case? --candle•wicke 01:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This will fade away very quickly as most stories of this nature do. Also, it bothers me that users keep putting more importance on the case because it happened in a Yale building. Um. So? I don't think we should put special importance on certain universities like that. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has not only received national coverage, but also extensive international coverage nilicule (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Delete WP is NOT news. Temporary fame is NOT notability.
  • Strong Keep. Granted, Wikipedia is not news, but Annie Le's murder will be remembered for being an extraordinary and significant event at Yale. If we deleted all articles based upon the fact that the person's notability would "fade away", I don't understand why the James Kim and Cho Seung-hui articles haven't been deleted. -Imhyunho (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strange that this discussion isnt closed soon as it is obvious that we will keep it.--Judo112 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's precedent, articles with similar circumstances have not been questioned, why should this one be? I'm not going to nominate all other articles for deletion because I think its silly to do so. If a murder case is talking about on the news all day long, and is constantly on the news, and has garnered a great deal of national attention, there should be no reason to delete it. Some people disagree with this and only believe that subjects who do not have the same amount of notability as United States Presidents should be deleted. This is an excellent example of Wikipedian nonsense. If you think that the rules should be changed, candlewicke, why don't you petition to change the notability guidelines to your liking? RiseRobotRise (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The argument that the encyclopedia should automatically delete those of transitory fame is fallacious. Almost no one "talks about" obscure popes and kings of the tenth century in their daily life; the notability of those people has certainly "faded away" over time Still, we would never think of deleting those people from the encyclopedia because they are significant to historical and social scholarship. While the late Ms. Le was no king, her murder will remain very notorious within the Yale community, which virtually guarantees that it will be the subject of scholarly analysis, above and beyond the bare facts of the case. This is, in fact, already happening in the Connecticut press. Although it may seem unfair to other victims, murders on Ivy League campuses are very rare, and almost always merit encyclopedic coverage because of the scholarly comment that they generate, in addition to any "news" value. To delete Ms. Le's article would be a disservice to scholarship. While there may be categories where "faded" notoriety should be considered in AfD analysis, events that are already the subject of scholarly analysis are encyclopedic, whether the public has stopped "talking about them" or not. Ms. Le's murder is not akin to a reality show finalist; academic minds have taken immediate note of it. Xoloz (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vast coverage, notable event that will remain so long after the newpaper headlines have gone. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. Support reaming to Murder of Annie Le.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While there are doubtless many murders in the US each day, this one stands out as it happened at a well-monitored area at a world-famous university, and to someone young but with so much proven success and potential. Sure, this news will be replaced in our minds with something else in a week or two. But then most news is like that anyway. Annie Le's story should be documented and retained here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcoins (talk • contribs) 18:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an outside the box murder. This is not your run of the mill home invasion that happens daily in this country. I agree with the change of title as the Event itself is noteable, not the person. However, this event will be a point of discussion on every college campus for quite some time. Whenever people are discussing student safety this event will be brought up. - Sorry if I did anything incorrect. This is the first time I have joined in on a discussion. --vision40 (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will be? But how do you know this? And is it verifiable? --candle•wicke 00:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Why all the focus on "count"? Some of the content within the deletes make a lot more sense than some of the content within the keeps... --candle•wicke 00:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and give time for the story to develop. The sensationalism of the case is exactly what makes it notable. Wikipedia is not a news source, BUT news consumers come here for reliable, neutral background on issues, be they current events or ancient history. That function is within the scope of the encyclopedia. --Whoosit (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This case has affected me, personally, more than most murder cases. Firstly, the victim was unusually sympathetic in her background, achievements, and approaching wedding. Secondly, this case will likely become ironclad because of the extensive use of technology: video cameras, swipe cards, and DNA evidence, more so than with other cases. Thirdly, I am struck by the methodical professionalism of the police in handling this case. Fourthly, this case may lead to new ideas in campus safety, namely, the closer scrutiny of campus staff. I do think this case will be a hallmark case in campus safety, and perhaps in minority women's issues. Hanuman (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has affected you personally though as you say... there is nothing wrong with being affected by an event of course but are your emotions and judgement becoming interlinked? Again, perhaps I am misreading that and apologies if I am. But you also use a "might" and "may" argument with nothing definite guaranteed... I have nothing at all against Annie Le and stumbled across this by accident but how after three days can long-term notability be proven in a murder case like this that moves it beyond WP:MEMORIAL (and there are suggestions of personal and emotional attachments) and WP:NOTNEWS? I am not seeing any evidence of this in the keep arguments and this disappoints me after all this time. --candle•wicke 08:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This case is not about campus safety. Only one victim was killed. It's about workplace violence. In the future, I would hope that new ideas would prevent workplace violence. [1] If it was about campus safety, the school would have told the students to not go out. [2]Esthertaffet (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on guys give the people a break. This should be kept because it hit a chord of sympathy for the young, students, females, people trying to get ahead and make this world a better place, etc. Life is not all cut and dried science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.9.11 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 16 September 2009
  • Weak Keep - But why not try this - improve guidelines for notability of 'current affairs' items. If journalism is the first draft of history, Wikipedia articles of this sort should be the second. There's absolutely nothing wrong with allowing an article to stay in place, if properly categorised, edited, referenced, to see if it really is notable, with the hindsight of some, well, history. Don't forget W'Pedia, unlike printed encyclopaedias is not bound by space limitations. So try thinking on your feet editors, looking to reforming the 'pedia's practices/policies themselves as well as developing articles, and stop wasting everyone's time with your absurd delete-twitch. Please?Jmanooch (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Up for deletion, come and join the argument" on an article like this just makes Wikipedia look terrible. We're supposed to be here to create an encyclopedia-- a compendium of information for our readers-- not an argument forum. Santayana said it well-- Those who forget their goal and redouble their efforts. Dekkappai (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Infinite notability is not prerequisite to a topic being of encyclopedic value. The Jovin case faded from the mainstream many years ago but still maintains an entry on Wikipedia. It would be logically inconsistent to delete the Annie Le entry. --Aristotle1776 (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2009 (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.