Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Jessen (2nd nomination)

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. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 17:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Jessen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Newmanoconnor tried to start this discussion, but did so by editing the first AfD discussion. Below is their rationale for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Does not meet WP:N via WP:NRVE. Though the subject is interesting to some parties and has some coverage in non-mainstream media,the coverage is for the most part is not WP:NPOV and the main claim of the article is unverified by anyone other than the subject of the article.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - wikipedia should not be a tabloid.

This is a biography of a living person and therefore requires a the strictest level of verifiability.
The primary claim in this article is speculative and Non-verifiable - worse it cannot be verified.
This speculation also poisons the rest of this article.
If it is not deleted then all the non-verifiable {{facts}} content must be challenged and removed leaving nothing of substance.
Last but not least there is a strong case that this is a vanity article, with COI or paid editing issues. BO; talk 16:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I also moved this !vote from the discussion that Newmanoconnor started. SmartSE (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of independent coverage of this person, the article as it stands barely touches it. Both the proposer and the above delete !voter have based their arguments on a faulty premise. It doesn't actually matter whether the subject of the article survived an abortion or not: the important fact is that she claims that she did - and that claim is very well referenced indeed. —SMALL JIM 22:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you familiar with WP:NRVE? Or the Rules for Biographies of living persons? just because you can find numerous Internet pages with this woman's story, mostly from religious or other non NPOV sources does not mean it has good verifiable sources that can be cited to back up her claims. The fact that she made this unverifiable claim does not warrant her inclusion either. If we did remove extraneous information and pare the article down to only include the information that she made this claim, the article wouldn't meet WP:N standards and would be a less than substantial stub that would be deleted anyway.Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, I'll edit the article a bit and add some refs, and then we can see if you're still of the same opinion afterwards. OK? —SMALL JIM 16:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've rewritten the article and sprinkled a few easily-found good-quality NPOV references around. There's plenty more that could be added, but it's not a subject I'm much interested in, so I'll leave further expansion to someone else. Speedy keep or SNOW, anyone? —SMALL JIM 22:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references you found aren't NPOV, they are regurgitations of this lady's own telling of her story. There is no in depth coverage, no investigation, no counter points to the claims she makes. The only other sources that can be found are Not NPOV because they are ritzy critical of this woman and her story which is unverifiable, no verifiable birth certificate, no doctors, no nurses , no other witnesses. this is not encyclopedic material. if at any point there are good verifiable source material cited that can prove her story, or even lend evidence to it, or discredit it, the article does not belong on Wikipedia, unless someone wants it there for one of the opposing pov's on abortion.Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC):Comment I have gone back and read over the WP:BLP and WP:SOURCES sections as well as the sources you added. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something here. Being in the tabloid sections of a news organization, whether the news organization is generally a good source or not, does not meet the criteria Of WP:Sources especially in the case of a BLP when the source article is primarily based on a self published press release or self propagated story.[reply]

Every source you cited And i have ever seen on this article is based on this womans own story, not an independent biography, not an investigated story. Newmanoconnor (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're still confusing verification of fact with verification of claim. The former isn't important in this case because it's not what makes her notable - if it was we'd have articles on every verified abortion survivor (and, on the other hand, List of messiah claimants would be empty). What makes Jessen notable is the enduring interest that has been generated by what she has done during her life. Sure, she's a person with a mission, and her story has been used to get a point across, as the NYT piece of 1991 that you removed pointed out, but many reliable sources have seen fit to write about her, and that's what makes her notable. Although her actions stem from a non-neutral point of view, we can still write about them in a neutral manner.

On this basis, I've undone your rather too hasty revert of my edits to the article. If you want to discuss notability or NPOV further, might I suggest Wikipedia talk:Notability or the NPOV Noticeboard where you can talk to some of the specialists who hang out there all the time. —SMALL JIM 10:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is add sources that have been on the page previously,your initial argument about the fact that she claimed to have survived an abortion, is contradicted by your removal of the statement from the page about verifiability of her claim,and you not adding any language to make the article NPOV. WP:N is not the only retirement to have the article stand, regardless of the debates about it. If you truly think she is notable because of this claim only regardless of truth, then have the article reflect that, not just parrot her claim.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you are an admin, and I am trying to be respectful of that, but it seems like you are ignoring serious issues with this article and sources, I'm inclined to conclude that you have a strong personal opinion about this subject. I didn't want to type out every issue with the article, but I will list as many as I have time to tonight.

WP:BLP issues:

WP:BLPSOURCES "Material Should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism" While some of the sources you added are from reputable news organizations, the actual source cited is a tabloid piece. The sources are "Primary sources" see WP:Primary. "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on the context. A book by a military historian about the second world war MIGHT be a secondary source about the war,but if it includes details of the authors own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.

WP:V issues:

WP:SOURCES Again, simply being an online article or print article in the New York Times does not on it's own the criteria for reliable sources. We have to take into account the Creator of the work, the Publisher of the work, and the document/article/paper/book itself. In this case the articles themselves account for the majority of reliability issues, but there are a few which have issues with the Creator, or the Publisher as well. There is not a single academic,peer reviewed journal,textbook,or other top tier source for this article. THi also brings up issues with WP:QS. Also,an article about an abortion survivor, BECAUSE they are an abortion survivor is an exceptional claim. As stated in WP:EXCEPTIONAL, Exceptional claims require multiple high-qualityItalic text sources.

WP:N WP:GNG issues

Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability, again these are Primary sources in the context of the cited article/the work itself. They are also base off self publishes sources, e.g the subjects own website bornalivetruth.org which certainlyn't NPOV. Fails "Independent of the subject criteria"

Finally for tonight WP:WHATISTOBEDONE

When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. This article would never appear in any other encyclopedia. There certainly wouldn't be sources from "the blaze.com" or a single CD on the Amazon marketplace. While I cannot make the article go away, and I am not inclined to revert the whole article again as you are an admin, there is also at least one other admin that feels the same about this article. So I am going to remove those sources and their claims immediately.Newmanoconnor (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this issue at the BLP Noticeboard, and left a message on your talk page to explain why. —SMALL JIM 13:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Subject of a biography, international activist, highlighted by politicians and coverage on multiple continents. Clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability (people), whether her claim can be verified or not. Dru of Id (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of coverage by major sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Movie October Baby has lots of people wanting to know more about her. Her claims are as verifiable as those of many historical figures, and she is a public figure. I heard her speak publicly 21 years ago; she is believable in person. The removal smacks of suppression of truth, taking the bias of the typical media as a sort of standard. If there is no entry on Wikipedia, it will be taken as the "encyclopedia that toes the politically correct line." Her story will be out there regardless of what you do, but you'll have no share in it. Also, look at the Wikipedia entry for Sally Hemings. It seems to me that Jessen's claims are more verifiable than Hemings. The claim "Hemings became pregnant by Jefferson in Paris and agreed to return with him to the United States only after he promised to free her children when they came of age" references a PBS Frontline TV show, for goodness' sake! That claim is sheer speculation, and Hemings is mentioned in Wikipedia ONLY because of it. Of course, the Hemings story is nicely politically correct, so it will not be nominated for deletion until the sun is a dark chunk of coal in the sky. Meanwhile, the Jessen story is almost as politically incorrect as they come, the only category more likely to be deleted being that of an ex-gay person. But that dispute's for another day; let's deal with one witch hunt at a time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.41.138.84 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC) — 50.41.138.84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Regarding the Hemings issue, please read this essay. City Of Silver 17:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for pro-life activism and for being the ~~subject of~~ inspiration for October Baby. City Of Silver 17:07, 21 April 2012 (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.