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. Seddσn talk 04:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nadya Suleman

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nadya Suleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Subject of the article is notable for just one thing: having given birth to octuplets after fertility treatment. Hence the page should be a redirect to the notable event. However, a previous AfD debate on this "biography" was closed after just twelve hours by an involved editor. The page is in itself a massive BLP violation, as aspects of this woman's life apart from her unusual approach to motherhood are irrelevant to an encyclopedia. We have got the point of publishing every single name that she has been known under, and linking to an online version of her divorce papers: this is not encyclopedic material, it is gutter journalism. Just because something can be verified does not mean it should be in an encyclopedia: otherwise we might as well just read the National Inquirer. This article should be deleted, nay oversighted, then a protected redirect created to Suleman octuplets, the only thing which even vaguely approaches encyclopedic notability. Physchim62 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment On the accusations, the linking to the divorce paper is only a court summons that shows no additional information other then the date it was filed and her name(s). Under the rules for primary sources it is allowed. Due to the MANY names shes been known under and published as in the news outlets, it's necessary to list at least the most common referenced ones in the media. BLP violations are unlikely do to the immense amount of reputable sources for the information. According to WP:LIBEL if the information is from "reliable published sources," then it's valid for inclusion. With the shear number of sources we've included we strive to have EVERY statement backed up with at least one reliable source if not many. Sure some of the sources might be from 'tabloid' papers, but if they are we try to find at least one or more from a reliable news outlet. Problems with sources can easily be fixed (theres been over 17,000 news articles indexed by google news in the past month alone referencing her name) from the shear number of sources out there. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Admin If the decision is to delete or merge, please give the editors plenty of time to readd the information back to the octuplets page. Thanks! — raeky (talk | edits) 18:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I'd also like to point out this AfD came after the editors decided decided to get additional input on the validity of listing multiple names shes gone under and which if any should be kept. They decided to post on the BLP notice page for visibility. There it was suggested due to the short time frame the previous AfD ran before it being closed (even though it met the criteria for speedy keep) they felt it should be renominated for more input and thus it was renominated here. The reasoning behind the renomination may qualify for a speedy keep under criteria 1, "for the sake of process." — raeky (talk | edits) 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first AfD debate was closed after only twelve hours, when we're talking about very serious policy points here. I don't hold any grudges that it was closed after the nominator withdrew the nomination but, just three days later, the same editors who were supporting the proposal are now having to discuss the obvious BLP implications, including asking for outside help (a very respectable move of the editors concerned). The editors might not like the answer I propose, but it seems obvious to me that this woman should not have her life dissected on a top-ten website any more than is strictly necessary. Physchim62 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an excellent rationale for watchlisting the article, posting it at the BLP noticeboard, and so forth, but not for deleting it. AfD is not for cleanup, it is for articles that fail to meet the most basic criteria for an encyclopedic article. This has sources up the ying yang, and, as you pointed out, has some very thoughtful editors doing their best to keep it neutral. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anything the octuplets should be redirected to the mother. Multiple births are not all that notable anymore due to the increasing use of fertility treatments, but a mother on welfare who already has a bunch of kids, three of which have been getting disability payments their entire life, plus the lack of a father and the ethics investigation into the doctor who made this whole mess possible add up to notability for the mother more than the kids, about whom there is little to say since they are newborn infants. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page is an obvious magnet for BLP violations: it should be salted until this woman has done anything more significant than have fourteen kids, which is not something so unusual in itself and in historical terms. Physchim62 (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are hundreds of pages that are magnets for BLP violations, should we lock them all? Active editors can reverse blatant violations quickly. We strive to get reliable sources for every statement to avoid BLP violations and libel. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boy Psychim, you really hate this article don't you? Calling for oversight, and now permanent create protection for an article that has been edited in good faith by dozens of people and handily survived an AfD just a few days ago? It's not just that she has so many kids, it's the circumstances in which she had them, and the almost universally negative public reaction. That is unusual and notable and may represent the beginning of a change in the way Americans view fertility treatments and multiple births. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I do hate this type of article (I've nothing special against this one in particular, but it came up on my radar so there you go). Why on earth should we have articles which we know are going to cause us problems when the guidelines (and common sense) says there's a better way round the problem? Why should other editors have to look out for BLP violations on two pages when they could simply be doing it on one? Why should Wikipedia be the hostage to a handful of media junkies who feel that it's their right to publish every personal detail they can find about some single mother in California? Eliminating the gutter journalism and media vultures from Wikipedia would go a long way to making flagged revisions unnecessary. This is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a yellow press newspaper. Physchim62 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Octuplet's page is going to draw just as much BLP violation problem edits as her page would. I still feel that she meets the criteria for her own page. If the main argument is just that this is going to receive a lot of BLP violations then I find that a weak argument. Active editors can quickly revert edits that are not backed up with reliable sources. — raeky (talk | edits) —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I'm assuming that a redirect would result in most of the current "content" of the article being deleted. As such AfD is an appropriate forum to discuss the matter. Physchim62 (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is supposed to be used for the outright deletion of an article. Merge requests and the debate surrounding that I believe is usually handled on the respective article's talk pages. If it was redirected we'd have to greatly expand the octuplets article to include info about Ms. Suleman, since all the surrounding issues, legal issues, ethical issues, and all that would have to be addressed to be fair to the subject. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Redirect" is a common opinion voiced on AfD, and it is perfectly fine to suggest it in a nomination as an alternative or addition to deletion, so long as deletion is on the table. And in this case, it is: The nominator says, "This article should be deleted, nay oversighted." That might be going a bit far IMO, but it's not the sort of "advocating a redirect" that one might find on an article's talk page (due to the fact that a mere redirect would preserve all diffs and revisions and wouldn't, therefore, amount to any true "deletion"). Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of biographical articles which do not begin to meet notability requirements, yet here there is no question of notability and IMO, no question that she is notable for more than one "event." Even this guideline is not set in stone. See John Smeaton (baggage handler), an extensive article on someone definitely known for only one "event." Under the premise being used for deleting this article, the Smeaton article should also be deleted. Biographical articles should be based upon notability and should not not be deleted due to a desire to limit public attention to the subject. Toounstable (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed that article should have been merged, as there was consensus to do. Physchim62 (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toounstable, FYI other crap exists is a null argument. We know there are other articles out there worse than this. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a weak argument (not a null one), so is asserting quoting it as some prime directive against someone - it's an WP:ESSAY after all, not holy writ. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the Admin who makes the decision, please consider all of the comments on the previous AFD discussion page in your decision. Toounstable (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two articles? There is one about her and one about the octuplets. We're attempting to keep the vast majority of the info about her on her page and only relevant info about the octuplets on that page. I hardly see it as two pages about Ms. Suleman. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've been here before, but usually with regard to foul deeds (eg one article for a murderer, one article for the murdered, one for the murder, one for the trial ...). Current practice is for a single article (AIUI). Mr Stephen (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how your examples apply in this case. The birth of the octuplets and their medical issues is one event. The controversy, legal and other matters that focus on the mother and her actions I contend is a separate event that isn't entirely relevant to the first one. — raeky (talk | edits) 21:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly the place to add additional BLP violations! — raeky (talk | edits) 20:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you maybe give a reason based at least remotely on Wikipedia policy, "not worthy" doesn't really cut it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So much of Physchim's argument to delete is based on repeating the whole BLP thing. That's not a reason for deletion. Report it at WP:BLPN or request it be protected at WP:RPP or initiate a discussion to place it on the [2] probation list if you really think it's that big of a problem, but deletion is not a remedy for BLP problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article will continue to be a problem for as long as it exists, or until the subject discovers a cure for cancer or assassinates a U.S. President or does something in between that would make her much more notable than the simple fact of being the mother of octuplets. A simple (imperfect) solution exists, but it requires deleting the page and forcing the current editors (should they wish to continue with the task) to write only about those points which stand a bat-in-hell's chance of being encyclopedic and on a page which only deals with the (barely) notable topic. Physchim62 (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again just because it might draw vandals and BLP problems is NOT a reason for it to be deleted. Again your advocating it to merge which automatically qualifies this for speedy keep. So far your arguments is that it is a BLP magnet (which is easily mitigated by active editors), shes not notable beyond the octuplets (even though she herself attracts more media attention then the kids, due weight), and that you don't like it (definitely not a valid reason for AfD). I think theres enough evidence to point out that she is more notable for herself then the octuplets, if anything the octuplets page should redirect to her page if you go by due weight rules. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any article of this type is a BLP magnet, that's why the Community instituted WP:BLP1E. I don't think there are active editors on this article who do not want to place non-encyclopedic content on the page. There is a simple solution: delete the page and force those editors to work within a different framework. If you want to write you comments about the subject outside of the framework of an encyclopedia, there are several free web-hosting services available to you. But beware, you might not find them as polite as Wikipedia is. Physchim62 (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly do you think the content on this page is non-encyclopedic as a whole? I'm sure there is work that is necessary and we're actively working on it, but to say the entire article as a whole is encyclopedic I don't see that. It's valid to include negative information and criticisms in a BLP if there is valid creditable sources for them, and there is. Unfortunately there just isn't very much (or any?) positive information about this case. Because of that you can't say it's unencyclopedic. What rule under WP:NOT do you propose the majority of the edits on this page violate? — raeky (talk | edits) 02:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 1

[edit]
  • Hmm, reliable sources? Out of 31 references in the current version of the article, all but one of them are to media reports, exactly the type of source that WP:BLP tells us to be wary of in this type of case. The one remaining reference is a primary source repeated in a blog to an utterly irrelevant factoid. Physchim62 (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add t hat the arguments for deleting an article as a magnet for problematic edits is totally wrong--we have sufficient means of keeping an article objective--this is an argument that if followed, would delete the articles on most famous performers and politicians. They're problems, but we know how to deal with them. The BLP problems we do not know how to deal with as well are the more obscure articles. DGG (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have sufficient means to keep the article objective if it is intended as a complete biography of a woman who is only known in relation to eight of her fourteen kids: any attempt to keep it clean would lead to constant edit-warring with those editors who think yellow-press is clean, and would end up at arbitration. Delete and redirect is the best solution for the encyclopedia as a whole. Physchim62 (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The logic here is circular. As Adam Zel points out, BLP1E states:
Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.
Adam Zel may disagree, but the thrust of the keep comments is that "independent notability" has been established. So the rest of the analysis is moot. Bongomatic 14:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what, independent of the octuplets, is she notable? Adam Zel (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My view (and that of many other commentators here) is that although she only gained the limelight because of the octuplets, subsequent coverage of her relates to (a) previous IVF births; (b) legal remedies being sought against this type of behavior in various legislatures, family issues that relate both to and not to the octuplets (such as her 911 call before the octuplets were born where she reported that she had lost a child); and (c) lots of trivial matters that are not directly related to the octuplets (foreclosures, family problems, relationship issues, disability payments). WP:N doesn't say that coverage establishing notability of a topic has to be interesting and deep, but only that it has to be significant, and published in reliable sources independent of the subject. That burden has been met. Review the citations—many mention the octuplets only in passing as a way of identifying the subject, rather than providing a focus for the article. Bongomatic 16:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll have to disagree. I don't believe these are independent of the octuplet birth, rather because of it. Adam Zel (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep . . . that's the crux of this whole discussion if you filter out the yelling. Reasonable people seem to disagree in good faith on this point. Bongomatic 16:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost the crux, yes, I'll agree with you there. Another important point (for me) is that the decision to split the articles causes BLP problems in itself, which could be avoided by keeping all the aspects in a single article on a single subject. If there is a "biography", it is in the nature of Wikipedia that editor will try to add verifiable factoids to it, because they are writing about the subject of the biography article. However, a subject is not encyclopedicly notable just because they have a Wikipedia article about them. Nor are they notable just because other people talk about them. Wikipedia is not here to record everything that is verifiable, otherwise I would upload the minutes of the local town council meeting into the page of my home town, or the bus timetable, or whatever. The bus timetable is a major topic of conversation around here, but I doubt it interests anyone else. On the other hand, uploading the local bus timetable wouldn't hurt anyone at all: digging into the grimy details of people's personal lives simply because they have been on the news, and then publishing it on a major website so as to ensure that the info gets good Google hits, that can hurt real flesh-and-blood living people.
I don't know if the subject of this article is hurt by the coverage or not. Neither do I know if any editors, so vociferously calling for the article to be kept, have financial interests in the continuation of the publicity circus. What I do know is that this type of article causes the encyclopedia far more problems than it's worth, and that a simple alternative exists in this particular case – protected redirection to Suleman octuplets with the elimination of any material which could not fit into that article. Physchim62 (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So your position is, regardless of notability, that it shouldn't exist because of the possibility of future BLP violation edits and because you don't think something should be on wikipedia that shows someone in an unfavorable light? The content of the article is based on what verifiable sources report on her, it's not our fault if there is far more negative then good, and it's not our intention to slant it either way. I'm willing to wager theres plenty of other articles on WP that isn't a glowing review of them, thats marginally notable and a "BLP magnet," should all those be deleted as well? The direction of the article as it evolves is guided by the sources that are available not the editors (at least that's this editors intentions). I don't see how it hurts WP if this article remains, provided there is proper consensus she's notable. The 'crux' of your arguments generally fall under crystal ball reasoning, which isn't valid for a AfD deletion. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a purdy scarecrow. :) ₳dam Zel 06:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your saying that Nadya Suleman is a anonymous variable in the event, birth of octuplets, and that she herself is less interesting then that of the birth? I find the facts contradict this statement heavily. She had 6 kids already, all very young, unable to financially support them as it is, used money that could of went to food and clothes and rent to have plastic surgery and ADDITIONAL IVF to have 8 more kids. Has threatened suicide while pregnant with those 8 babies, chose not to selectively reduce the number of fetuses, putting all 8's life in danger, has refused financial support and free care for them, the only future financial support (next few years at least) plan she has is to get more student loans to pay for them and rely on her parents, seems to have clear mental disorders (backed up by reliable sources, if you think that's a blp violation), has had additional cosmetic procedures after the birth of the octuplets before she did TV interviews... all these additional facts about her put her interest and public interest well WELL beyond just having eight babies at once. All the media focus after the first couple days has been directed at HER not the babies. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the Gutter journalism, I don't deny that there is that element out there in the world, and some papers/websites are going that route. But there are plenty of reliable news outlets that are not resorting to this kind of tactic, you can't say ALL news about her is Gutter journalism because that is simply false. Our job as editors is to only include information and reference reliable sources, not what the most recent tabloid has said. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: [edit conflict] Not that she is an "anonymous variable," even if she should be. What I am saying is that she is a relatively unimportant variable. Okay, maybe a peculiar, eccentric, even irresponsible relatively unimportant variable. Let's make Bill not just any tiger, but a rabid tiger. Now we know a little something about him; he's not so "anonymous" anymore. Or, if it's puzzlement that we're after, then let's go the opposite route: Let's make Bill the carnivore judged to be the friendliest at the zoo. The fact that a thing or two can be said about Bill does not mean he deserves his own article. An article about the event could point out that a rabid/friendly tiger named Bill was involved, but an entire article about him would cave in to demands for sensationalist trivia. Similarly, an article about the octuplets' birth can point out that the mother is a woman named Nadya Suleman, who lives a controversial lifestyle. But the fact remains that no one would be talking about her lifestyle had this event not occurred. She (and her lifestyle) is a footnote to the event, not vice versa. At worst, an article-length preoccupation with this footnote would be gossipy and tabloidish. At best, it still flies in the face of the idea that "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." A conservative effort would not go to great lengths to point out that someone's controversial lifestyle surrounds a single event, when a discussion of that event could note the lifestyle in passing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get the disticnt impression you don't think she should have an article because you don't think anymore attention should be given to her? This is of course a "I don't like it" argument. We're here to decide the notablity of her, not if we agree or disagree with any of her actions. The issue shouldn't be about does she deserve more attention but does she qualify as a notable person according to guidelines and does her BLP withstand the rules of the guidlines. First we start with WP:N; (1) "Significant coverage": with nearly 20,000 referenced news articles, many of wich from very reputable news outlets and are solely focued on her not the octuplets, I think it plainly passes (1). (2) "Reliable": There are THOUANDS of news articles that pass the reliablity test. (3) "Sources": There are THOUANDS of reliable secondary sources. (4) "Independent of the subject": There are THOUANDS of independent reliable secondary sources. (5) "Presumed": The available sources, and their number, are headline news articles from reputable major news outlets. It would be hard to argue it violates (5) either. So I postulate that she passes the WP:N, it states "Notability requires objective evidence" and "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence." You can argue that this violates WP:BLP which states an article "must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR. For NPOV it is not, at least mine, our intention to express one view over the other. We're trying to add information based on reliable sources. Due to the shear amount o material already published about her we're attempting to do our best wo wade through it to arrive at the most neutral stance. Of course mistakes can and will be made (or already have), but this is where others can come in and help, point out problems. Just because problems might exist now dosn't mean they can't be fixed, and shouldn't be used as a basis for a deletion. We addressed [WP:V] above and for WP:OR: which is "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." We srive to make sure everything is properly sourced with a reliable source, ones that are not a source should be added or deleted. The article can remain NPOV, but if there is problems now, it's not a valid argument for deletion as per: WP:NOTCLEANUP. I just don't see how this article violates policies or how she dosn't meet the critera for notablity. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm well aware that she has been mentioned by a bazillion sources. What I am not aware of is any demonstration by any of these sources that she is notable apart from this WP:ONEEVENT. As for the whole NPOV/V/OR thing, BLP is about more than that, as I explained below ([5]; typo correction here). Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 2

[edit]
  • Thats a crystal ball argument, and shouldn't be used in an AfD. I think theres plenty of evidence now that shes notable in her own right. The Dionne quintuplets can't really be compared, first back then big family's of that size wasn't rare, they're identical so it wasn't an intentional act of her parent(s) to have a multiple birth, and they apparently had the means to support the children. A identical multiple birth of that size undoubtably caused a 'media circus' but the focus of the attention was completely different than this case. We need to assess the CURRENT notability of the two, the birth, and the mother as it currently stands not how it might turn out in the future. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It may be crystal-balling, but even a fortune teller should be pessimistic when it comes to BLPs. An eventualistic attitude is inconsistent with a "conservative" approach that favours a subject's current privacy over the prospect of her future notability. As for current notability, let's not confuse the recent hype with substantive concern. This is not the first time that personal responsibility has been doubted or recommended, and it is not going to be the last. What we have is a biologically notable event with biographically incidental features. To have an article on Suleman is to overstate the biographical, and therefore not to exercise the caution urged by WP:BLP. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An entire paragraph in the introduction: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." And the bulk of WP:1E, e.g., "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Suleman is not notable outside of this event, and any mention of her outside of it is necessarily superfluous and tangential. And going off on tangents is not exactly a conservative approach to writing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats why the 3 specific rules must be met under WP:BLP which as I outlined above that I think this article does. Also your logic would seem to mean that we couldn't publish a critique, criticism or any negative information about a BLP. The rules state so long as it is sufficiently sourced with reliable credible secondary sources it's valid for inclusion. Obviously care must be taken to not WP:LIBEL someone, but so long as valid sources are available it is valid to include it so long as you remain WP:NPOV. — raeky (talk | edits) 21:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of course it can be appropriate to have a criticism-based BLP, and I have in fact defended such an article in a prior AfD. To be precise, the article was Criticism of Vladimir Putin, which is perfectly acceptable because the subject is biographically notable in the first place. This accords with WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NOTCENSORED, and therefore with the idea that even the most sensitive, conservative assessment of him that can be presented within reason will include critical assessments of his activities. Because it has not been established that Suleman deserves to be cast into the limelight, or that, apart from being an incidental figure in a biological event, she is any more than a pawn in the media's money-making game, it is not clear that she can be treated in a sensitive and conservative manner except insofar as she is noted in passing in an article dealing with the event in which she was involved. Furthermore, "the rules" do not "state so long as it is sufficiently sourced with reliable credible secondary sources it's valid for inclusion." If BLP were about nothing more than WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR, then it would have no need to state anything beyond, "See WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR." Abiding by these three policies is the bare minimum required by BLP. The point isn't that they should be followed (the individual policies can speak for themselves on that point), but that they should be the backbone of a cautious and sensitive approach to biographical figures. And, like I said above, being cautious and sensitive toward Vladimir Putin is not the same as being cautious and sensitive toward Nadya Suleman. The former is already notable enough to have plenty of BLP material, so the question of sensitivity revolves around the ways in which criticism should be presented and counterbalanced. With the latter, the question revolves around whether it is appropruate to give her any biographical attention in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— LotusOne777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • While its good to explain the foundation of our opinion, this lengthy editorial does not belong here. What does the statement "Only a class of people incapable of having babies would adopt this incredibly incorrect position?" mean? Are you assuming that only males want to see this article deleted or merged? Until told otherwise, I'll believe I am interpreting that statement incorrectly. The alternative is too ridiculous to swallow. --Boston (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed, mothers are very important, the pillars of our society. They should be given medals for being mothers, and we should have lots of Wikipedia articles about them. Maybe we should set up WikiProject Your Mother to coordinate all this, to write articles about your mother. Yes, we would have a group of people hunting down every titilating yellow-press factoid we could get out grubby little hands on about the woman that brought you into this world, and then we'd publish them on a Top-10 website so that whole world could find them easily. Because it's important for the world to know what your mother is really like. I suggest that the project starts with thorough investigations of Raeky's mother and Beeblebrox's mother, possibly moving on to investigate LotusOne777's mother as well. Physchim62 (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just not an applicable one for this discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes it is. Furthermore, WP:NOT#NEWS gets at a lot of the WP:BLP stuff I've been rambling about: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic" (emphasis mine). But if you really take both WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP to heart, you might reach the same conclusion that I did, which is that even the event is not notable enough for a stand-alone encyclopedic article. Rather, the event should be mentioned briefly in Multiple birth (and it is), and the person should be mentioned even more briefly within that passage (and she is). Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If all this woman had done was give birth to eight kids, then WP:NOTNEWS would certainly apply. I'd have zero problem with redirecting her name to an article on the octuplets and merging any content there. But this is not a person known for one event, she's known for so much more than that now, thanks to both the media's efforts, and her own, that deleting it is absolutely the wrong way to go. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All she has done is give birth to eight kids. The rest of the doing has been by the news media, which has taken on the task of reporting the non-events of her life that have no place in an encyclopedia. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Fasterthanaspeedingbullet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I contend that just the shear size, number of editors and lengthy debate for this AfD (which is highly unusual looking back through the archives) seems to speak to the notability of this person. A completely unknown person, or even one that wasn't controversial like Mr. Sullenberger in the above example wouldn't spark such a huge debate. The fact that this many people has this much of an opinion on it, above all else, is an argument for Keep in my book. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A major difference between Sullenberger and Suleman is that Sullenberger is notable for far more than one event. He is a published scholar who has collaborated with NASA; he is an international expert on airline safety; he is a former Air Force captain and accident investigator; he has testified before Congresss; etc., etc. He probably deserved an article even before Flight 1549. A second--and related--difference is that Sullenberger's ability to save the plane like that might have been unique. Not any pilot could have done that. I still am unaware of anything that uniquely predisposed Suleman to have the kids. She could have been anyone. A third difference--and the most important one for BLP purposes--is that Sullenberger is not a controversial figure. It is not difficult to write about him in a sensitive and conservative manner. But the very act of singling out Suleman for an article may amount to giving her both positive attention that she did not earn, and negative attention that she does not deserve. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see where you get "published scholar" except maybe because he has an advanced degree, in which case hes no more notable for that then the millions of other people with advanced degrees. Theres thousands of people who "collaborate" with NASA, not every NASA employee or contraster deserves a wikipedia page. Being an "international expert in flight safety" is also not a notable thing, nor is being a captain in the military. Plus I have faith in the majority of our commercial pilots, MANY are just as distinguished former military men, to state that his ability might be "unique" is very inaccurate. Landing on water isn't exactly an untaught skill. Sure he saved plenty of peoples lives, averted a possible disaster, but being notable beyond landing a plane in a river? That's a stretch. — raeky (talk | edits) 09:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I get "published scholar" from the fact that he is a published scholar, a fact that is already noted in his article: "Working with NASA scientists, he coauthored a paper on error-inducing contexts in aviation." Your average commercial pilot is not the CEO of an aviation firm; a graduate of three academic institutions with two masters degrees; a speaker at an international conference; a visiting scholar at a well-known university; an instructor, safety chairman, accident investigator, and national technical committee member for the Airline Pilots Association; an accident investigator for the U.S. Air Force and National Transportation Safety Board; a major contributor to the development of a Federal Aviation Administration advisory circular; a developer and teacher of a major airline's crew resource management course; and, yes, the coauthor of a NASA paper. Sullenberger is: [6]. And now we get to Flight 1549, where he didn't simply have the ability to save everyone's lives, but actually used that ability in an uncommon way (the last time anything comparable occurred was more than 45 years ago) and an unlikely locale (planes that crash into the middle of a metropolis generally don't have zero fatalities). And finally, we get to Suleman, who, um...had some kids. That has got to be the most unfair comparison between two individuals that I have ever heard. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure he's a hero, but I don't see how any of the events in his past prior to the crash that make him notable enough for an article, or anymore notable beyond the plane crash. Sure he's a good man, well educated and well off, but much of what hes done isn't notable. I don't see how you can argue that hes more deserving of a page then Suleman. I think this is a perfect example of two extremes myself. Sullenberger is a perfect example of a hero, he did something everyone respects him for so everyone holds him in high esteem, so he gets his own page (one which resulted in a very familiar looking snow keep AfD decision.) Suleman on the other hand is the exact opposite, virtually noone thinks shes acting in the best intrest of her children, shes not liked and people get very opinionated about her article, not necessarily on the grounds that she doesn't merit one but because giving her one might validate some of her actions or at the very least make her more visible. The two people's fame stemmed from one media frenzy event, what's different is Sullenberger hasn't been seeking more media attention or generating anymore outlandish stories, where as Suleman is generating even more outlandish stories by the day, like the most recent one where shes selling a video of the birth to the highest bidder [7], not saying this event makes her more notable but this is definitely not normal). As more and more information about her is published the lasting impact of this gets stronger. Currently just a few stats are considering IFV reform laws, which is another reason to keep an article on her to reference. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 3

[edit]
  • Eh... How about this one then,
This is nothing more than a singular burst of media attention on an otherwise nonnotable subject. Every once in a while random human interest stories get picked up by a few news and tabeloids, and the story spreads like wildfire for a few weeks. That is, until the media latches onto the next thing and the story is ultimately forgotten. In 1997 some septuplets to survive were born in Iowa. There was a huge media storm over the event, and the story was in the news for several weeks. Now no-one even remembers it.
The policy WP:NOT#NEWS says that we must consider not only the number of sources, but also the historical significance of a topic. There is no historical significance here to speak of - its just a woman who had a lot of kids - nor is there any objective evidence that the attention on this event is more than a passing fad. To speculate on whether or not this will be important would be crystal balling, which we do not do at wikipedia.
Furthermore, this story is inherently of a tabaloid nature, as are the majority of the secondary sources we have. This is unacceptable because WP:NOT#NEWS tells us that Routine news coverage of such things as ... tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.
Finally, one could make an argument that the act of having 8 kids is inherently notable, given it's rarity. But even that isn't good enough. According to policy, Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. The news coverage of Nadya Suyleyman does not go beyond this single event, so she should not have a wikipedia entry dedicated to her. The only place suitable for the information in this article would be, for example, a short entry in the list of multibirths article.
Taking all of this into account, it is clear that this subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If the significance is weak, you must delete. AfD hero (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed one: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." ;) Physchim62 (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AfD hero: Now that you've explained yourself, I actually agree with you completely. I misinterpreted your original delete !vote as a sarcastic way of saying that it's ridiculous to invoke WP:NOTNEWS here (e.g., delete this article about such a well-known figure as a way to demonstrate that WP:NOTNEWS-based arguments have become ridiculously prevalent). Actually, it still reads that way to me, but your more detailed rationale makes perfect sense. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The McCaughey septuplets hardly compare to this event, they had them as the result of fertility drugs, not a voluntary decision to have a multiple birth, they chose not to abort any on religious grounds and they didn't have any existing kids, and could support them. Ms. Suleman is hardly comparable. For example the McCaugheny's wasn't use as a pretext to pass stricter laws governing IVF [8][9] They didn't try to sell a video of their children's birth for a million dollars [10], they wasn't a single mom with multiple children they couldn't support, had an income, didn't live at home with their parents, didn't have plastic surgery and very expensive IVF to have more children they couldn't afford, didn't seek and want media attention, the list goes on and on. I challenge you to find another story that is covered in this depth. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note-Nadya Suleman has been viewed "291,628" as opposed to "136,860" for the octuplets, she is more popular than the kids.Troyster87 (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But less than half as "popular" as Adolf Hitler… 10,000 hits a day during February is still less Selena Gomez, Madonna, Beyoncé Knowles, Kristen Stewart, Hannah Montana, Megan Fox, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Angelina Jolie, Freida Pinto, Lady Gaga or Rihanna. The difference is that all of those women also averaged at least 10,000 hits a day during January, and most of them will probably do the same in March. So much for this subject being "the most talked of woman in 2009"! Even America's Next Top Model gets half as many wikihits again. Physchim62 (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands is appallingly sourced—several references simply don't contain the information claimed for them—which is a BLP violation that doesn't seem to have been prevented. But that's by the by. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current state of the article isn't a valid reason for an AfD, articles can be improved and it is. You're welcome to help. And I agree theres to many sources, it's hard to verify all of them, when we're putting an "unhealthy amount" of time into this AfD (As was so graciously pointed out above.) — raeky (talk | edits) 17:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I wasn't clear. The only point I was trying to make was that the article is already a BLP violation, despite being fairly short and with all the refs online. That is not a reason to delete. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But, as has been pointed out above, we're well past the "one event" stage, so BLP1E really isn't applicable here.Umbralcorax (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out, the main editors on the article have shown themselves quite incapable of grasping the basics of BLP policy. The article should never have been created in the first place, and is certainly unsafe in their hands. Physchim62 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I'm not asking for it to be deleted on the basis of a notability criterion, although that would also be a good reason. I'm asking for it to be deleted on the basis of BLP policy. Old hands will remember the precedent of an Ohio sex offender who became famous on the internet for a quite distinct reason. Jimbo had to delete that one, after several AfD debates which make this one seem like a church tea party. The current article adds nothing to the encyclopedia, and is already a magnet for all sorts of BLP violations. It should be sent to the (locked) edit window in sky. Physchim62 (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think the two should be merged somehow. I don't think these are distinct phenomena. You cannot treat the subject of the 8 children separately from the mother, or vice-versa. That could change in the future but for now the notability of both is completely a matter of this one issue. Wikidemon (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to meet the notability criteria... — raeky (talk | edits) 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Encyclopedia is, I think, the operative word in that quoted sentence. Perhaps she is notable, if by "notable" you mean that she passes WP:GNG, where G, for "general," is the operative letter. Generally speaking, this guideline can help one to determine whether or not a subject should be granted its own article. But in individual cases, certain other guidelines and official policies (such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP) become salient and help to determine whether a subject that has passed the GNG milestone is ultimately encyclopedic. She has been noted, that's for sure, but to either history's benefit or hers? Doubtful. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well for one, the octuplets are notable in their own right, longest surviving in history (I believe), second set in the united states. All the controversy and wrong doing of their mother and the IVF doctor aside, they're notable for that. It would be best to separate the two, of course some mention about how they came to be and their family is necessary and whatever future developments that directly involve them, sure. But all the legal and other issues of the mother shouldn't clutter up the octuplets page, because it's not relevant to their existence. All that should be with the mother's page. — raeky (talk | edits)

— RezaBosagh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment: Most scientific achievements don't just happen out of the blue. Scientists are predisposed in biographically unique ways to do the stuff that they do, and scientific discovery is generally a gradual and piecemeal process that cannot be meaningfully described as "one event." There is, perhaps, the occasional exception that proves the rule (see Benzene#Ring_formula and Archimedes#The_Golden_Crown), but I think it is safe to say that most important discoveries do not pop out of the brain quite as spontaneously as kids pop out of the womb. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2009 (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