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 no consensus. —Sean Whitton / 13:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shona Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This person doesn't deserve to have her own page. She isn't notably in any way and should either be deleted or merged into the Health care reform in the United States. I feel we should just delete this article Fire 55 (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Health care reform in the United States. Don't think it deserves its own article but should be mentioned. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 11:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Here is a reference I found today, to an article about Palmira Holmes, a fellow resident of the town were Shona Holmes lived, who has been inundated with calls from other Canadians outraged over Shona's apparent betrayal of Canada. A wikipedia article about Palmira Holmes would be a BLP1E. But Shona Holmes has multiple claims to notability, beyond her appearance in the ad: (1) there is the discussion over the credibility of her claim; (2) there is the strength of the feeling of betrayal from ordinary Canadians; (3) there are the comments in reaction from senior Canadian political leaders; (4) there is the Democrats Abroad counter-reaction. Geo Swan (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carmela Fragomeni (2009-07-23). "You have the wrong S. Holmes". Hamilton Spectator. Retrieved 2009-07-25. Palmira Holmes has been inundated with phone calls from people trying to express their fury over Shona Holmes' decision to become the face of an aggressive American TV ad that slams Canadian-style health care.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- If, for the sake of argument, there was a strong argument for merging this article into another article, why would we merge it into Health care reform in the United States, as opposed to:

• Canadian health care system -- Holmes is, after all, a Canadian...
• Canadian and American health care compared -- her youtube video is, after all, part of a comparison of the two systems...

It seems to me that when there are multiple potential targets for a merge and redirection that is a very strong counter-argument to merging, it is a very strong argument that the topic of the article is of sufficient notability that it should remain a stand-alone article, and should not be merged. Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rememeber someone isn't notable because shes in the news as this link explans. The only reason why see is getting this coverage is because of the health care reform in the US and therefore either deserves to be deleted or linked to their. She is a part of the debate on health card reform and that's where the info belongs.--Fire 55 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because what she's "notable" for is an advertisement which aired in the United States pertaining to a debate about American health care reform. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- for the reasons I offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per WP:BIO1E Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable and the ad she was in has more to do with Patients United Now's efforts to block/direct U.S. health care reform than her specifically. --Ctbwiki (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly worth mentioning somewhere, but essentially a WP:BLP1E. The debate she's a part of is notable, but that doesn't mean that she is — which is proven by the fact that this article is almost entirely about the advertisement she filmed, and contains almost no biographical information whatsoever. Perhaps an article about the advertising campaign itself might be in order — but absent other proof of notability, we don't particularly need an article about her. Merge to an appropriate target or delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, you refer to just a single debate. But surely there are multiple debates?
• Comment May I remind everyone that the wikipedia is not solely an American project? There is a separate, different debate triggered by Holmes claims up here in Canada. Geo Swan (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her

• Keep -- What makes wikipedia useful is that when, in a debate with some fox news viewers, this woman I've never heard of before is mentioned, I can get a quick summary of the facts from a source that I can trust. Keep, keep, keep. --69.134.163.9 (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment' The ip users comment is very fishy since not only was it the persons first edit, but only seconds after Geo Swans. Second if you are getting facts from wikipedia and you trust it you need to really look at wikipedia again because no university will accept facts from wikipedia. Nevertheless the fact that you are in the news DOES NOT mean you get an article. Which you can't seem to get Geo Swan. Please read this again WP:BLP1E. Holmes is only getting coverage because of the fact there is a health care reform in US. --Fire 55 (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet master? In my five years of contributing to the wikipedia I have faced three or four irresponsible and unsubstantiated accusations that I am a sockpuppet or sockpuppet master. But I declare this is the the one with slimmest justification. Geo Swan (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the fact that the comment by the person is just stupid. I said it was fishy I didn't accuse you. First, it's really fishy that a persons first edit is on a deletion debate. Which more ip user don't even do let alone the first edit they make. Either way this page is going to get deleted because the people that know wikipedia guidelines agree with me.--Fire 55 (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you ever heard of reverse DNS? In the interests of your credibility you might consider using it before you accuse anyone else of sockpuppetry. Geo Swan (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard of proxy servers. I bet you have. I'll come back with a message that says I'm from Japan then from one in France.--Fire 55 (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) Please don't call other contributors stupid. Doing so never helps cultivates reasoned civil discussion. 2 You called the IP post "fishy" because it came "seconds" after mine. It came eight minutes after mine. That is 480 seconds. Geo Swan (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never called anyone stupid. You purposely are putting words in my mouth (this is the second time). I said the comment was stupid and I have every right to say that a comment someone made is stupid.--Fire 55 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator claims: "Holmes is only getting coverage because of the fact there is a health care reform in US." But, if that were true, why is it the following articles which discuss her precedent setting court case don't mention the US health care debate?
  • Tanya Talaga (2007-09-06). "Patients suing province over wait times: Man, woman who couldn't get quick treatment travelled to U.S. to get brain tumours removed". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2009-07-27.
  • Sam Solomon (2007-09-30). "New lawsuit threatens Ontario private care ban: "Ontario Chaoulli" case seeks to catalyze healthcare reform". Vol. 4, no. 16. National Review of Medicine. Retrieved 2009-07-27.
  • "Auditor says Ontario should post wait times for every surgeon". CBC News. 2008-10-08. Retrieved 2009-07-27.
  • Kevin Gaudet (2007-12-01). "Patients Sue for Private Health Insurance in Ontario". Canadian Free Press. Retrieved 2009-07-27.

TY Geo Swan (next time sign your posts) you still don't get it. YOU DON'T get an article if you are in the news. These stories are middle in the newspaper articles not the front page stuff she's getting because of her ad. If see is so important why did you create the article years after these stories. BECAUSE OF HER AD.--Fire 55 (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fire 55, here on the wikipedia we are supposed to reach decisions through cool, meaningful, collegial, civil discussion. This means that those who comply with the wikipedia's civility policies do their best to actually read what the other person wrote. They do their best to confine their comments to editorial matters. I read what you wrote, blp1e, blp1e, blp1e. Could you please show me the courtesy of trying to actually read what I wrote before you respond? The four references I cited above date to 2007 and 2008 -- over a year before she appeared in the US ad. As I pointed out above those references were to her lawsuit against the government of Ontario. I suggest this is a separate event from the US ad, by any reasonable measure. Geo Swan (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since you still don't get it I'll quote the page "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."--Fire 55 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• She is not notable; the events are: WP:BLP1E. Either merge to an appropriate article or delete. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious BLP1E. Besides, the article doesn't even make any effort to assert her (nonexistent) notability. 195.14.197.53 (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. The case is now sufficiently notable that the public has a right to a balanced account. That being said, this is only a small part of this woman's life and an article under her name would be problematic for all the reasons mentioned above. I suggest renaming the article something like "The Holmes-Advertisement Controversy". (Perhaps someone can find a better title, ideally one that doesn't use her name, though the fact that Holmes is not this woman's professional name may mitigate that problem.) Bucketsofg 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rename, per Buck's reasoning. If she has a nasty divorce, it doesn't belong in here...make the article more clearly about the advertisement and her medical context. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep-or-Rename: She appears on Fox TV, Mayo has edited her Patient Story, she's been mentioned in the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun, the Canadian Press, the Halifax Chronicle Herald, Bloomberg, the Calgary Herald, the Ottawa Citizen, Fox Business, The Guardian (.co.uk). It might be "one event" but the clear response to "one event" is rename, not delete. - BalthCat (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to potential closing administrator -- since those who voiced a delete opinion, based on BLP1E, mainly did so before the article was expanded, and generally haven't returned here, to meaningfully address the counter-arguments, I'd like to request their opinions be discounted, because this is supposed to be a discussion -- not a vote. These ((afd)) are supposed to be discussions where there is a meaningful exchange of views. I am going to suggest this article be relisted, to get the opinions of individuals who have read the article in its current state. Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have seen the changes and as can only be expected it is still only about the event not her. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact the article doesn't even mention where she was born, her birthdate, or even her age. Even if you google them you get nothing. No one knows or cares because she's not notable.--Fire 55 (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to somewhere appropriate. This woman is a pawn in the healthcare debate, she is not personally notable. Sueing over medical treatment does not make someone worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Fences&Windows 02:41, 1 August 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.