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; all concerns regarding WP:AUTO aside, the general concensus here is that she meets WP:BIO. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Biggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I deleted this under CSD A7. The user re-created the page, and added substantially more information (secions 3 and down). What do you all think. No Stance —— Eagle 101 ^{(ask me for help)} 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- I think this person is sufficiently noteworthy. Reyk _YO! 02:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Possibly notable; I added a refs tag and categorized it. Akihabara 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy DeleteKeep Disclosure: I have been in extensive dialogue with Barb Biggs on her talk page. The page submitted is an autobiography written by the subject. I think before we can accept this there will need to be many independent sources cited and/or an extensive reduction of the content. I advised her to compile her notability sources and I was intending to consider writing one myself if, after verifying the sources she had a notable and verifiable biography. Alan.ca 06:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Although I am concerned that user:Barbbiggs is editing her own biography, the criteria of wikipedia have been met to have an article for Barbara Biggs. It is my hope that editors who find this topic useful will contribute more neutral point of view content. Alan.ca 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I'm finding this a very notable person. [1][2][3][4]. If there's a serious vanity issue, I have no problem deleting it to a stub and letting it grow. But definately a notable person. --Oakshade 07:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oakshade, if this is your position, than strip it down to a stub based on referenced material and the AfD debate can continue on the stub article. My may concern is Conflict of Interest at this point. I have been working with Barbara on her talk page and I intend to continue to do so to find material that may be relevant.Alan.ca 07:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite the fact that I have been working with Barbara on her talk page, due to this process, I have taken some time to look at the reposted article. I removed all references to articles Barb Biggs wrote as that would clearly be Conflict of Interest. Further, I reformmated the 3 provided citations and removed a great deal of uncited statements. That said, I offer this section of wp:bio for contemplation as I think this is the nature of our debate:

--- The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

• This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following:
  • Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works.
  • Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.

--- The citations we currently have in the article, two of them are interviews and one is an independent article. The interviews, I am interested to read the thoughts of others. Do we consider interview statements made by the subject reliable sources? Barbara is making some rather controversial statements about the barrister, that I have not seen confirmed by anyone but Barbara herself. If we choose to accept the interviews as reliable sources we may be reprinting something that is not a reliable statement. Lastly we have the "Hollingworth in 'journey of discovery'" article from theage.com.au. The Hollingworth article reads as credible as it is not simply an article, but I personally cannot speak for the reliability of the source. Anyone on that subject have a thought? I have not touched on the book citations, I would like to read your thoughts on these 3 first. Thank you for your patience. Alan.ca 08:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm having trouble understanding your issue, Alan. First of all, she was a sole primary guest of the BBC program Woman's Hour [5] and that's the audio interview (actually, by listening to it, it sound more like a discussion with the host [6]). That she was chosen as the primary guest on a long running popular national radio show is an example of notability in itself. And I would strongly argue that an "inteview" is very different from an "autobiogrpahy". The other two pieces currently in the article certainly aren't "trival coverage" (not just a "mention" or a listing).[7][8] She's the "Primary subject". As almost always, when there's a journalistic piece of somebody, they contain quotes from the subject. Correct me if I'm but, but just because they contain those quotes, you seem to be labeling these as autobiographies. They're not at all. And none of these are "self published works" in any way. ; The Age articles and the BBC interview are not published by this subject. This passes WP:BIO easily. --Oakshade 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point I am raising for discussion is the value of sourcing a statement the subject of the biography made in an interview. I think the idea of independent sourcing relates to remarks others have written that support the article about the subject. When you are citing the subject, even if it's in a national interview, the source is not the interviewer, but the subject themself.Alan.ca 08:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only dealing with the issue of notability, not exacly verification of the article content. I'm looking at these articles closely and I'm finding a majority of the Nitika Mansingh and Damien Murphy written ones have only a small minority of actual quotes of the subject and are mostly about her rathing than listening to her. I agree that the article content should not be verfied by the actual statements of the sujbect, whether they are from that BBC interview or the written articles, except as written in journalist form that actually cites the subject, ie. "According to Ms. Biggs, when she was 5..." --Oakshade 09:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keep I am not familiar with the radio show in question, but in the U.S., being the primary guest of a tabloid TV show means very little. Some shows even put on fake guests or coach guests into elaborating their stories. The reputation of the show is very much at issue here. That said, Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons requires that any accusations she has made against still-living persons be independently verified, or else that the accusation itself be sufficiently notorious that it has wide press coverage. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Woman's Hour is very similar to a US NPR show. Think like All Things Considered or Fresh Air but specifically focused on women. You can listen to the audio link and judge for yourself.[9] --Oakshade 16:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't seem to read the file, but I accept your word that this is not Jerry Springer. I am still uncomfortable with the idea of naming an accused based only on her say-so, but that is an issue distinct from deletion. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audio files are always iffy. It's realPlayer. Just for information, there are at least 3 non-interview sources in the article now. I still won't argue about content verification (like the accusaions) only being her word without an outside source. --Oakshade 06:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'Barbara Biggs' Alan.ca 06:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Firelement85 11:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A friend alerted me to this page which I didn't even know existed, although Alan had mentioned there was a debate going on somewhere! - main reason I haven't responded to the debate. First point I'd like to make is that the barrister died in the 1990s. This was first rreported in a fourpage article Good Weekend, one of Australia's most respected liftout magazines in the Sydney Morning Herald and Age newspapers (Melbourne) in 2003 when my book came out. I will try to find a reference to this, however I find that often older articles are hard to find. The main reason dozens of articles about me haven't come up when I do google searches I presume. I was also interviewed on BBC World Service when In Moral Danger came out in the UK. Once again, if I can't find it on google, I don't know where else to find older references. If anyone knows, please let me know. In one version posted, there were references for the publishers sites listing In Moral Danger in Sweden, Greece and Japan. They are in the languages of those countries, but if you don't allow weblinks in other languages, this isn't necessarily going to be reported, since it isn't considered relevant news, in English publications. If anyone knows where such a source could be found, let me know. As for notability, there are pages of interviews about me on google, including some of the most respected interviewers in Australia - Phillip Adams, Robyn Williams (30 years presenting on ABC radio), George Negus (30 years Oz TV), Australia's top rating Sunrise breakfast news TV program three times. These are not cited but I will try to find them. As for the political career. Unsure why this was deleted since my candidacy was reported in Nitika Mansinghe's article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barbbiggs (talk • contribs).

Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you for clarifying that the barrister is no longer a living person, which relieves BLP concerns. If the name goes back, a date of death with citation would be nice -- perhaps he has a capsule biography in Who's Who or some equivalent? A Lexis/Nexis search might help as well. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to find many articles and interviews which I've slotted in, but not the crucial Good Weekend one. It's too old I think. The Sydney Morning Herald archives only back back 12 months. Also, I've found a Japanese amazon.jp site and cited that for the Japanese publication (this is in Japanese, but the book, In Moral Danger and my name is written in English on the site) but amazon doesn't have websites in Greece or Sweden. Of course I cited Greek and Swedish sites before, but somebody has deleted them, presumably because they are in a foreign language. I'd certainly like to know how other people verify that their books have been translated into other languages. In any case, see how you go with the sources now cited and keep me posted Barbbiggs

See my comments on the talk page, where detailed discussion belongs. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on the talk link in your posting above and got a page for Robert West, which I presume is you? couldn't find your posting there but will look again. Barbbiggs 12:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Talk:Barbara Biggs, which is where discussion of improvements to the article belong. This page is solely for discussions about whether the article should be deleted. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What is WP for if not articles on people who have written books about their experiences that have become obvious matters of public controversy. DGG 01:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly passes WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 08:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep noted public figure and author with numerous media mentions. She clearly passes WP:BIO.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please the person is notable and not a speedy deletion candidate at all Yuckfoo 01:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe the hoo ha, back stabbing, control issues, going on about this article. As a result of, I presume, adding source material and fixing typos to this article myself, I have been blocked from my username and can't log on. This feels more like a grade eight class of school kids fighting over what is basically an innocuous article that should have been a fairly straight forward process. My many 'edits' that I have disobediantly 'added' have been fixing typos, adding an apostrophe and adding sources. If you want ordinary people with something to offer to have a positive experience with WP, I suggest you get over yourselves and spend some of your time fixing up other, appalling and offensive entries (Recovered Memory Therapy, The Courage to Heal, Satanic Ritual Abuse) instead of wasting everybody's time with inoffensive ones like mine.
I have personally spent some 20 hours trying to satisfy your every increasing demands on what is basically a few hundred words about a person who writes books and volunteers much of her time on an issue that most people find a turn off. Do with the article what you will. I resign. 203.36.217.79

• Keep based on authorship of multiple published books. JamesMLane t c 09:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As written now it is properly referenced, and contains multiple, non-trival independent media publications on the subject. Notability is not subjective and if the media has determined her notable, the primary criterion of wikipedia notability has been met. Ccscott 17:20, 15 December 2006 (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.