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 as meeting WP:N and WP:V requirements. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ama Sumani

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

This womans death though tragic is not noteworthy enough for inclusion, it had no impact on UK policy and she is to all intents and purposes unknown Zaq12wsx (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, but why does that make it noteworthy (please don't take this as an attack). This woman's case did not affect UK immigration policy in any way, it did not result in any novel changes of legal procedure, the courts did not warrant it a uniquely interesting case (it set no precedent); to me theres a parallel with victims of crime, i simply don't think wiki should become a log of human suffering where victims and their families who would otherwise have been able to get on with their lives are constantly reminded of what happened even though the event itself has long been forgotten in the public mind - because it was ultimately insignificant.
This article does raise some issues about wiki's definition of noteworthy, the opening paragraph makes clear what is noteworthy for this website is (correctly) distinct from 'fame', 'popularity' and 'importance' yet it goes on to list 'significant coverage' as a indicator of noteworthyness even though in these times most news organisations duplicate directly articles posted by newswires or redit those articles to create their own simply to fill space in 24 hour news; the result is practically anything that happens is seemingly echoed endlessly regardless of the actual uniqueness of an event.
In cases such as this i'd rather go by the more objective assessment of 'did this affect policy? did it set a precedent?' in otherwords has something changed because of it that in retrospect does make it noteworthy. In the case of Ama Sumani i can't see anything that indicates that, and all we're left with is an electronic rubber necking of a victim.
I'd like to reiterate that this isn't an attack on anyone and i hope you appreciate im only trying to open a dialogue :) Zaq12wsx (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss the WP guidelines for inclusion and notability, I think this is not the place (or the way) to do it. You better go here[1] instead. Your main worries above appear to be POV to me. You write "i simply don't think wiki should become ..." and "i'd rather go by the more objective assessment of..." That's fine, but the article meets the current WP guidelines for inclusion and I most certainly do not agree with your description of this case as "insignificant". (These links are all just "rubbernecking"? [2],[3], [4], [5], [6], [7])    SIS  11:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh im aware of the difference between what this discussion ia about and discussions about wiki policy; i was simply elaborating for clarification.
Ultimately yes i consider the case to be insignificant; from an institutional point of view it did nothing of significance, neither the judicial system nor the government regarded it as setting a precedent, rather it obtained a degree of notoriety (which in the given context is the closest synonym to fame). Regarding the links you've posted - i would consider that to be journalistic rubber necking.
To juxtapose with an article on a crime, Mary-Ann Leneghan's death was written about on wiki but the article was deleted (correctly in my opinion), that was an instance where there was far more media attention and the where the court of appeal did raise certain issues of importance. One of the points i remembered being raised was wiki can't and shouldn't be a catalogue of suffering - and that was essentially one of the justifications being given for retaining that article. I wasn't trying to get into a discussion on wiki policy by bringing up the notability guidelines, i was just pointing out 'significant coverage' doesn't mean anything on its own.
kind regardsZaq12wsx (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell WP:GNG and WP:V are met on all counts. I haven't got anything else to add, really. I see what you're saying but I just don't agree (as explained above).    SIS  11:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per SIS. The core guidelines are met, and the closest guideline that would back you up, WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, in my opinion just barely misses in Sumani's case—clearly more than one "event" happened to her and the press kept their reporting up for quite some time. I think you're mistaking importance for notability, the former is subjective, the latter is objective. hateless 15:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, english isn't my first language and because of that im afraid i can't link into the guidelines of wiki as confidentally as other people, so please excuse me a little, but im confused by what you mean by 'clearly more than one event' happened. Surely there was only one event that happened which i would take to be her deportation? that is what brought her to the medias attention, would a follow up reporting her death be an event? if someone is run over by a car and the news reports it, then that person dies at a later date with the news briefly reporting in addition, can those really be called to seperate events? surely it is the instance or thing that initiated the media attention in the first place that is the event?
Regarding importance and notability im trying to be as objective as possible, it isn't that i have something against this woman i just don't think any encyclopedia would include an entry on her, to give an external reasoning, none of the institutions of the uk consider her to be notable, her case set no precedent, wouldn't that be considered the most objective test of all? there have been other people who have been ill and have been deported and have subsequently died, you can say this womans case had some noteriety (fame) but if you were to zoom 10 years into the future would her case be notable either to the uk immigration department/home office, the judicial system or the wider public; i would answer no. She was just someone who happened to catch the medias attention.
Please forgive me speaking in the first person, although i know the difference between what this page is for and wiki policy discussions when i try and frame my thoughts i can't think of any other way of putting them down, the poor communication isn't an attempt to put forward an non neutral viewpoint!
kindregards
Zaq12wsx (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zaq, we don't follow "UK rules" on what notability is, nor do we follow what the dictonary says. We have our own objective criteria on it, and this subject passes it. As for WP:BIO1E, there are at least two events being covered: her deportation, and the media backlash against it. Note that this is very much similar to how Madeline McCann would pass WP:BIO1E: if you don't count the media attention, then McCann would only be notable for one event. The bottom line is that we made notability the standard for inclusion because if a subject is notable, then there are enough published, reliable sources available for an accurate article. With the plethora of news article available about Sumani, you cannot make a credible argument that the article cannot be accurately sourced. As long as notability is satisfied, insignificance is not a factor. hateless 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thank you, i better understand your point - though i still disagree with it! :)
I do not consider the media reaction to be an event in itself as it is almost always simply the process of reporting, it becomes a circular argument
If it is reported it is notable
It is notable if it is reported
It begs the question of what is notable? By bringing up 'uk rules' as you put it, i was only trying to bring a sense of objectivity to the discussion. Regarding the Mccann case i disagree with the comparisson because in that instance the feedback between the original incident and the media meant the coverage did become a seperate event, and as we can see there is a seperate article that only deals with the reaction of the disapearance because it was so unique, in order for the coverage to become an event the coverage has to become part of the event and not simply cover it. It is that distinction that i do not think that happened in the ama sumani case - and i do not think happens in most cases. The mccann dissapearance was an outlier.
To try and be concise, i consider there to be one event (her deportation), the media coverage only reported the story and did not become part of the story and as such should not be considered an additional event. In addition the very first reference in wiki's notability (people) article is from a dictionary, and i don't consider this particular case to be unusual enough to warrant an article.
kind regards
Zaq12wsx (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More