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.
Delete or redirect to Morgan Tsvangirai. As the wife of a politician, Ms Tsvangirai has not established notability in her own right. WP:NOTINHERITED covers such situations. WWGB (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I would propose a redirect to Morgan Tsvangirai, and perhaps merge some information in a section about the accident (or what it is, I've only read headlines so far). ch10 · 08:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I disagree. I think a lot of politician's spouses don't have their notability but are still very much notable figures. Colipon+(T) 08:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep - it's a well-referenced article, I think being killed [dare I say iffily? :-)] like that is a decent basis for notability. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to Murder of Susan Tsvangirai Death of Susan Tsvangirai; the article is (and should be) largely about the event rather than the person. Keep it. It's a cinch that Wikipedia should have an article on this, and any rule that says otherwise should be ignored per WP:IAR and WP:SMARSHALLISRIGHT.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 10:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, I bet someone'll quote NOT#NEWS, and I'll pre-empt that by saying I think Susan Tsvangirai's murder is pretty obviously an event of lasting historical significance in Zimbabwe.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 10:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further comment, I've changed that to "death" rather than "murder" to avoid NPOV concerns. (But she was murdered.)—S MarshallTalk/Cont 10:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec)All the news I've read say, it isn't a murder, just a car crash, with Tsvangirai's party MDC saying it isnt a murder ch10 · 10:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually the MDC are suggesting that it could have been a murder.[1]Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Late wife of the Zimbabwean head of government. In comparison, we keep articles on people like Cherie Blair and Sarah Brown (spouse) without question, and treating Zimbabwe differently is systemic bias against developing countries. That she was killed in a road accident has brought her name to attention in Western press, but it is absolutely not ONEEVENT material. Sjakkalle(Check!) 10:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must say, I do think Cherie Blair and Sarah Brown are both notable on the basis of their own accomplishments, so I'm not convinced there's a parallel there.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 13:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just had a look at Mrs. Brown's article and I have to say there's very little notable about her if we removed a PM connection from the equation. There'd be just an early life, education and would she even have the label of "J. K. Rowling's friend" without Gordon? I'm just saying that there are millions of such women but we need some consistency – being the wife of a U.S. President or a UK Prime Minister cannot be more notable than the Zimbabwean equivalent or that of another country if there is information available on the subject. And in this case we have enough information and even enough for notability in her own right in my opinion. --CandlewickeST# :) 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge or move somewhere Yes, she is the wife of the head of government. But at the moment, she's only notable for her death. Rename to a "death of" article or merge to Morgan TsvangiraiSceptre(talk) 12:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. She is part of the history of the country. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The sources in the article show that she is not only notable for her death, but also for her role within the MDC and importance in Morgan Tsvangirai's life. This is a good example from the Independent [2]. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I weakly concur with the keep. DS (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, per arguments above. She was, in many ways, a public figure in Zimbabwe – please ignore the rules, as I reckon this is a lady many people will expect to find an article about. --Eivind (t) 13:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There is no need to ignore any rules. According to the article she was a prominent member of a political party, so she's not just the PM's wife. Family of notable people can be covered in a separate article if they do something notable themselves. If not, they're a likely redirect target. - Mgm|(talk) 14:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep - The spouse or family members of a politician or public figure, especially one with a national or international reputation in their given countries are notable. Keep. Scanlan (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - at the moment there is negligible material that is not either fleeting news and speculation or related primarily to her husband. (She was "very discreet and stayed out of the limelight"[3], ie had no particular political profile, with comments about 'mother' role being perhaps simply kindness to her friends and family.) If someone (Zimbabwean, please?) can flesh out this meagre portrait to show her 'leading' role, I'd welcome the page back. (Maybe do it quickly, and save us all the trouble of deleting it.) Earthlyreason (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, as per above (she was notable in Zimbabwean politics, she is known in Africa, she cared for and championed her husband when he was being beaten) see what develops in real life, develop article. Additionally keeping the article assists gender balance and ethnic representation on en.wikipedia. rkmlai (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gender balance? Ethnic representation? How does that matter? The only thing that matters is whether someone is notable. The only way we create balance and a fair representation is by treating all groups equally. We don't apply the notability criteria differently to different groups, and we don't keep articles on non-notable people simply because we might need to even things out. AecisBrievenbus 07:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I am reading, in English, she held a lot of social power in Zimbabwean politics. That is notable. I don't know how much is reported differently in Zimbabwea v. US and Europe. We do not treat all groups equally. There is specifically a bias toward "printed media" which is a bias, a bias I share and that wikipedia calls RS. But it is a bias all the same. I say there are other biases present and that her being African, a woman, with social pressures to be not in the limelight, but was anyway, (as noted by the disdain Mugabe's wife receives in contrast) is notable. Notable because what she did, what she said and that she was hailed in her country.
Perhaps the above user is referring to the fact that there is no similar rush to remove Mrs. Brown or Mrs. Obama. There seems to be a general assumption in the "delete/redirect" camp that Mrs. Tsvangirai was unheard of before her death. Maybe she was to those in the U.S. or U.K. but she seems not to have been so in Zimbabwe or even Africa, which before we forget is a rather large continent and not one country. --CandlewickeST# :) 00:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Morgan Tsvangirai. WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. I'm sure her husband loved her very much, but she's not independently notable for purposes of an encyclopedia, and she has not had a career or news coverage independent of him. THF (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: Neither has Michelle Obama. Not trying to be cynical, don't want her deleted (she won't even be deleted) but she is an unknown with Barack Obama. --CandlewickeST# :) 18:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Notable figure in Zimbabwean public life. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep, I cannot understand why this was nominated, I can only assume it was one line that informed of her death at the time. The section before her death establishes clear notability, of the type I've been looking through Michelle Obama to find and cannot satisfy myself - other than her standing by her husband's side during his campaign, she doesn't appear to be in the league of, say, Hillary Clinton. Whereas Susan Tsvangirai appears to have achieved much more during her life, and like Michelle Obama, should probably stay based upon her high public profile in her own country. I think this is being decided upon by many with little knowledge on African affairs, of which I myself am no major expert. But I would still advise it be kept. Much of the above about the article not saying all that much has me puzzled – Michelle Obama'a article similarly breaks rules concerning notability and yet it would never in a million years be deleted. --CandlewickeST# :) 18:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Michelle Obama's notable for being the first African-American First Lady of the US, actually, but she's irrelevant to this AfD per WP:OTHERSTUFF.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 01:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with Morgan Tsvangirai. Wives of notable people are generally not notable, probably with the exception of American First Ladies. Before her death, Susan Tsvangirai was (with all due respect) only the wife of someone notable, she wasn't notable in her own right. And what's notable about her now is not her role in Zimbabwean politics, it's her tragic death. And most coverage about that death deals with the question if it was a genuine accident. And that, in turn, is about Morgan Tsvangirai. In short: all the coverage about her is really about Morgan Tsvangirai. It's therefore better to merge the content of this article into Morgan Tsvangirai. AecisBrievenbus 07:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep Not sure, and as you haven't detailed from whence your Zimbabwean knowledge has been derived, where your perceived level of 'notoriety' 'ab extra', of this individual has been developed? May I point out that, as Zimbabwe is, for all intents and purposes, a 3rd world country, with a failed economy, it could be rightly suggested that individuals/groups that would have better quality and substantially more information on this individual, would be unlikely to have good quality or reliable internet access or news media contacts, to ensure that this information is propagated to the general global community and therefore projects such as WikiMedia. As your own words commit you, if a spouse of the American President is 'probably' notable, then 'ipso facto', in a globally connected community project, such as Wikipedia, other Heads of State and Prime Minister's spouse's are also notable. It is my honest belief that, within the context of not having the full story on an individual due to oppression or 'information management' (read: censoring), we, as a community, should not preclude an article on that individual, as being notable, in this project. Bcollier (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the notability of the US First Lady does not inherently make all governmental spouses notable. The wife of the US president is infinitely more notable and significant than the wife of the president of for instance Palau. If that gives us a systemic bias, that's because the world has a systemic bias. Countries are not equal. So what is the point you are trying to make? Cut to the chase. Are you saying that she would have been notable if she had done what she has done in Zimbabwe, in a western country? The only thing that matters to us is whether there are sufficient reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If they do not exist (which is what you seem to say in your last few sentences), the person does not meet our standards for inclusion. Why there are not sufficient reliable sources is of no concern to us. Aecis·(away)talk 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahhh ... so some animals ARE more equal than others!! Thanks for the clarification User:Aec is away/User:Aecis. Here I was thinking that as a GLOBAL community project, Wikipedia, was democratic and inclusive. So, from your confirmation, it is Communist and Xenophobic. Let me highlight this for you: ALL COUNTRIES ARE EQUAL, systemic bias or not (and what, WP should just reflect that bias from here to eternity ... give me a break!) - even the President of Palau and his spouse (though not currently noted within WP - but if a WP'ian had relevant information and believed that they were notable to them and Palauians, then WP:BOLD (and many more WP guidelines) allows, in fact encourages them, to contribute this article) are notable. The individual that this AoD is about, is notable, has enough information to survive this AoD challenge, and as time goes by, and more Zimbabwe individuals gain more access to the internet and are freer from oppression, this article will be improved with more quality and quantity of information. Plus there are heaps of secondary sources listed in the article, plus many more on this event and her life as a whole, that justifies, quite compellingly, this article. Also, please refrain from using we and us, like you have overriding power to. If you feel like using these pronouns, I suggest that you replace them and use the I and me ones. It is your opinion, not the collective's one, after all. Bcollier (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this is exactly what I'm starting to hate about Wikipedia. This project has dropped to the level of any random Pokemon fan forum. It's not about arguments anymore, it's about ripping comments out of context to make yourself look good. What you are doing, Bcollier, is making me say things I never said and using that to justify the most sickening accusations. If that's all you can do, I'm very disappointed in you. Thank you for sharing your vision of a perfect world with us. Now back to reality. You are consistently saying that we are gonna get a lot more sources about her and the oppression in Zimbabwe is keeping us from having more sources. That doesn't matter. Then write the article when there are enough sources, when the oppression is over. Wikipedia is not your soapbox, we're not here to reform the planet. If there are sufficient sources to establish Susan Tsvangirai's notability, she gets an article. And if not, she doesn't. It's that simple. Aecis·(away)talk 12:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK - lets NOT reform the planet (didn't think I had suggested that in any case). Let's state the facts here about this specific AoD. This article has plenty of secondary sourced material within it, it isn't just a construct of a single event and meets most other WP guidelines. It could do with some more work, no doubt, but there are what - millions of articles that need work (not a justification here, but still a fact). Let's remove the AoD and put a Content ambox or a stub reference in, requesting more work to be done on the article. Now, if making and having a constructive and meaningful discussion, where points of fact are discussed/debated and personal attacks are kept to a minimum (which was where we were before your last submission), if that isn't for you, then maybe you might reconsider your time spent on WP. I hope you, in your deliberations, come to the same conclusion as I, that all points of view should be heard and debated within talk/discussion pages/projects, even advocatus diaboli ones. I also hope you reflect upon what you wrote above, with a little regret. Happy to discuss further on our respective Talk pages. Cheers Bcollier (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, per arguments above. I believe the subject is notable. Borgarde (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. As per User:Circeus. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 11:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Most spouses of heads of state and government are notable, especially when they predominate media for a while, and I believe there could easily be an ensuing scandal. Star Garnet (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Seeing as how there is likely to be an investigation as to whether or not the US had a hand in her death, I think that this article goes beyond "just the death of a spouse." Her death could have ramifications for years to come and also change the way certain deaths of foreign dignitaries are handled from a worldwide negligence charge. There were a bunch of errors on the article though in the reference coding, so I just went in and fixed them.
Strong Keep Notability established by the mysterious nature of her death and its relation to the current political situation in Zimbabwe. Also dying from a possible assassination is different fro just dying. People who get assassinated tend to have a reason for that and they deserved their own articles.--23prootie (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Enough reliable sources to establish notability.--Sloane (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must say – it is coming on just a bit thick, yes. --CandlewickeST# :) 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, definitely a notable international figure. I'm surprised it is even being questioned.--Lester 00:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me too... I'm sure nobody would have questioned the notability of Diana, Princess of Wales. Yet she only became notable through events concerning her marriage and death (also in a car crash)... --CandlewickeST# :) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I'd agree with "Merge with Morgan Tsvangirai", except that page is 48 K already, but she is notable enough now. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MergeI think it will be enough to put a Level 2 headline to Morgan Tsvangirai, because of her death.Janisterzaj (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Why'd this article be nominated for deletion while articles such Sarah Brown (spouse) can still have their place on wikipedia ? (And I'm not saying that it should be deleted either because she is notable enough). Remember, wikipedia is international and has no scope for any regional bias such as the one against this article. --Roaring Siren (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Her death was important in the Zimbabwe crisis, and so she is important to Wiki! (Neostinker (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Delete/merge - even now after several more days, there is negligible material to show that she was independently notable, notwithstanding the kind words of leading MDC figures who knew her. To those who are anxious to avoid treating Zimambwe unfairly, please find some material of her significant contribution. There are already several references (BBC) to say she had no public profile.
And calls to include for parity with eg. Michelle Obama would logically lead to the automatic inclusion of the partner of any notable politician. Should we set up two pages every time a politician is added here? Some leaders' wives really are more notable than others. Earthlyreason (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re "Should we set up two pages every time a politician is added here?": No, and nobody has argued for that either. However, the spouse of a head of state or head of government is usually a well-known figure in his or her own right, even if it's just for being the spouse. Sjakkalle(Check!) 12:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep - The political and historical ramifications surrounding her death are enormous. LittleOldMe (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Agreed. This looks to be quite impactful and a thoughtful bio on her is appropriate. Her early life details can be filled in from obituary write-ups. We may need to pull in a translator to sort out the best publications and such. -- Banjeboi 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I am trying to find something relevant about Mrs. Tsvangirai that is independent of her husband, and I just can't. So she helped him out in prison--that can be placed in Morgan Tsvangirai. So can the rather ambiguous fact that she appears at political rallies. Delete per WP:1E, which plainly states, if someone "essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." It is not bias against developing nations to avoid writing about persons with "no independent notability".--MrFishGo Fish 18:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep close it already -- Ynot? 20:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, in part per User:Candlewicke's arguments, in part due to the high quality of the article and its sourcing, in part due to the continued shifting of arguments for deletion. If a clear argument for deletion cannot be made in the nomination, adding additional reasons as we go is just throwing things at the wall to see what will stick. This appears to be a continual problem on Wikipedia, especially with topics outside the experience by white college age North American males. Candlewicke's argument shouldn't even matter: the nomination should have failed even before we started comparing the subject to spouses from the UK or US. Place of residency effects only your knowledge of the subject, not its notability. T L Miles (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[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.