Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander
Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline|general notability guideline states thatA '''topic''' is ''presumed'' to be notable if it has received significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources that are Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|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 Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline|general notability guideline.  While #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 #MEMORIAL clarifies its purposeWikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be Wikipedia:Notability (people)|notable besides being fondly remembered.Thus, #MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does actually furnish independent grounds for deletion.  #NEWS has also been advanced as an argument for deletion.  Whatever the merits of ever raising #NEWS in any deletion discussion without claiming serious  issues#NEWS was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=prev&oldid=134171531 added to  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 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|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 #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., #NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here.  Indeed, #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 Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline|general notability guideline through objective evidence
— NONE, NONE
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:BLP||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)