Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Could also be no-consensus. It seems like GNG is handily met here. BLP1E is a mite more questionable, since there is a disagreement about whether "never again msd" and the comments at the Florida state capitol are separatable from the shooting themselves and we don't have a crystal ball that tells us whether she'll remain high profile outside of the topic - typical issue with BLP1E/NOTNEWS deletion nominations soon (for a given definition of "soon") after the event. A merger might be worthy of its own discussion. The NOTNEWS point seems to have been drowned out completely here, which is a problem since NOTNEWS is a fairly high-level policy and applying it to a concrete deletion discussion requires some careful consideration. Concerns about NPOV or advocacy have too little support either by headcount or by argument - NPOV issues need to be explained, not merely asserted with a short "Delete: NPOV violation", and the advocacy concern appears to rely on guessing editors' motives and I see no policy or guideline to support that. To sum up, the policy-grounded case for delete is not strong enough to outweigh the keep case, although a deletion nomination a year or so down the line may see things differently. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Emma Gonzalez

Emma Gonzalez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS Chetsford ( talk) 08:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 09:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 09:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 09:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 09:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
There's no need to merge this into Stoneman Douglas High School shooting as the entire content of this article is basically already replicated there. There's nothing to merge, in other words. In the absence of actual content to merge, we should allow the privacy of this BLP1E to be maintained by not turning her name into a permanent redirect to the shooting. It's unlikely people will search for her name. Chetsford ( talk) 20:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
You seem like you have some animosity here. Let the girl have her article. I searched for her name. Her speech went viral. Certainly not the last time we hear of her as she is a new poster child for gun control debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajahnbrahm1401 ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
"You seem like you have some animosity here." I do? "Let the girl have her article." A Wikipedia biography isn't a prize at the county fair. I wouldn't wish a WP biography on my worst enemy. "Certainly not the last time we hear of her" Please see WP:CRYSTALBALL. Chetsford ( talk) 00:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
User:Chetsford, have you seen the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article recently? Almost all the references to Gonzalez, all of her quotes (including the quotes from her speech), and all of the quotes from students, have been deleted. (The section on "Conspiracy theories" is longer than the section explaining the students' complaints.) That's why an editor started the Emma Gonzalez page. I would invite you to read the talk page, and restore the Gonzalez quotes, and other student views, into Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Then we could reasonably consider deleting the Emma Gonzalez page. -- Nbauman ( talk) 17:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
"I would invite you to read the talk page, and restore the Gonzalez quotes" I have never edited Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and am unlikely to start. While I have no doubt it's an important article, my editing on WP focuses on AfDs and articles related to biographies of early 20th century University of Pennsylvania faculty, and contemporary Czech history. Also, as a general rule, it's best if one applies desired edits directly instead of soliciting other editors to do so as this runs the risk of crossing the line into meatpuppetry. Thanks. Chetsford ( talk) 18:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

*Merge - Worth a few sentences in the article on the shooting since I fail to see how she is notable outside the incident. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 13:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

How so? Even if it does not belong here, everything is sourced and factual. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 03:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I think you are correct. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
This is still BLP1E. If she gets coverage in another 2-3 months or on a different angle (not related to the shooting) - it would skirt out of it. But if she's notable for speaking a few times after the shooting - it is still in the 1 event zone. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Here's the BLP1E ruling...
(1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
(2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
(3) If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
There are two, maybe three events now: (a) surviving the shooting (b) organizing Never Again MSD (c) rally to meet with legislators in Tallahassee, which clearly passes her on point (1). Further, do you think she's "likely to remain a low-profile individual" as in (2)? Nope -- huge coverage of her. Further, the event was significant, and this person's role in the event was both substantial and well-documented as per point (3). Clearly Gonzalez passes the BLP1E test, and passes the WP:GNG many many times over.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
This is one event - speaking up after the shooting. She's quite likely to remain a low profile individual - she'll get 2-3 news cycle worth of coverage, and that's it. She might become high profile in the future, but there's little reason to assume she will. Media often picks up on human interest stories in the wake of big tragedies. Sometimes such stories persist - usually they don't. Her role in the shooting is insignificant, and her role in speaking up after the shooting hasn't actually done much yet beyond garnering media attention - now, if this speaking actually turns into legislation or some other change - it would become significant. If all it amounts to is blowing steam after a tragedy - sorry - but no. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Kasky recruited Hogg and Gonzalez for Never Again at the rally, where he also spoke. “We said, ‘We are the three voices of this.’ We’re strong, but together we’re unstoppable,” Kasky said. “Because David has an amazing composure, he’s incredibly politically intelligent; I have a little bit of composure; and Emma, beautifully, has no composure, because she’s not trying to hide anything from anybody.” “All these kids are drama kids, and I’m a dramatic kid, so it really meshes well,” Gonzalez added. "How the Survivors of Parkland Began the Never Again Movement", New Yorker
Should she fall out of the group, the content could be removed from the target article. For now, the name is a plausible search term and there should be a space for this content on Wiki. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not Merge. If there turns out to be some documented role and this organization turns out to have some permanence, then there is no prejudice against future inclusion in MSD or even a dedicated article. Agricola44 ( talk) 05:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, at least for the time being. As mentioned above, there's a strong probability that she will maintain notability. Consider that, having earned 144K followers on Twitter in just a week or so, nearly anything she says or does will get media attention. -- Zanimum ( talk) 13:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge: This event, while tragic, is not of the scale that would warrant a minor actor like her to have an independent article. If she were to have one, the murderer (the main actor in this event) would certainly need one. However, there is little coverage of any accomplishments or substance to this person beyond her speech/views and certainly nothing of any lasting significance as yet. -- Veggies ( talk) 15:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting#Aftermath. I strongly oppose a merge as the "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting" article isn't about her so she shouldn't be given undue weight. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Precisely. Criteria 1 and 2 are met. There is no indication of this person becoming a high-profile individual thus far. As for criteria 3, one emotional speech rife with inaccuracies among many does not equal a substantial role in a significant event. -- Veggies ( talk) 20:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't know how better to show that an individual's role is both substantial and well documented than by showing that there is non-trivial coverage in sources from all over the planet as I have above. I think that's more than sufficient to justify an article. She's already a high profile individual, by any reasonable definition of the term.- Mr X 🖋 21:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Agree with user:MrX on the above. Darkest Tree Talk 22:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
No, no, no, no. Perhaps you and I differ on the meaning of "substantial" but a speech made after a mass-shooting, well-received or not, does not ipso facto convey on the speech-giver a "substantial" role in an event. The Peter Wang article has a stronger argument for preservation. She is not a major player in this event (the shooting) by any but the most contrived definitions. Any little substance (cf. "substantial") can be telescoped into the shooting article. -- Veggies ( talk) 01:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, yes, yes, yes. This not about the shooting, so that's a pretty obvious red herring. Gonzalez has a significant role in a significant movement. It's absurd to suggest that her role is insignificant when news organizations all over the planet have written featured articles about her, and continue to cover her role as recently as a few hours ago. The two main criteria for an article to exist are notability demonstrated by significant coverage in independent sources and compliance with WP:NOT. WP:BLP1E is not meant for this type of subject. It's meant to keep articles about high-school football stars and drunk drivers out of the encyclopedia. - Mr X 🖋 14:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Nope, sorry. The movement is significant (and has been for decades). Her role in it has yet to be seen (beyond an emotional and error-filled speech). I don't see anything within the last few hours touching on her except some opinion pieces on popular blogs that use her as a springboard for a broader policy thesis. I'm reminded of Ruslan Tsarni, the uncle of the Tsarnaev brothers who made a far more impressive speech after the Boston marathon bombings. It was well received, there were newspapers from all over the country remarking on his speech, one-on-one interviews with the man. But five years later, his story is one of a brief blip of notability tangentially related to a more important event followed by a return to a low-profile life. I see no evidence of anything of significance or substance related to this girl that cannot be telescoped into any number of articles. -- Veggies ( talk) 18:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank dog we don't delete articles about notable subjects simply because editors believe the subject has not made an impressive speech. - Mr X 🖋 19:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
That's correct. I'm not sure why you brought it up. It's not the argument I'm making, but, you're correct. -- Veggies ( talk) 19:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It is too early to say if Criterion 3 of WP:BLP1E is met. It's also hard to make the WP:NOTNEWS argument. Subject of the article is notable, event she is associated with is notable. If in six months or a year she is no longer notable or meets all three criteria of WP:BLP1E, then we can merge to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. There is no cause to delete this article at this time. And remember that all three criteria of WP:BLP1E must be met in order to qualify the article for deletion. Darkest Tree Talk 22:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Never Again MSD. Everything this person does is only noteworthy in the context of existing articles. I have no prejudice against mentioning her as appropriate in any article, but half a sentence is enough to give context, e.g. "shooting survivor Emma Gonzalez said XYZ..." A separate biography isn't warranted. Right now her notability is akin to contestants on reality shows who gain news coverage in relation to the show, not for their life's work. From a historical perspective, almost every news article is a borderline primary source: we need not write encyclopedia articles at the same rate nor depth of daily news. --Animalparty! ( talk) 22:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Precisely. -- Veggies ( talk) 01:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I suspect that the thousands of readers seeking her biography on Wikipedia would disagree with you.- Mr X 🖋 15:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
And a couple years ago, thousands of people were searching for that boy who made international news for bringing a clock to school, yet we discuss him in context of the event for which he became notable. Wikipedia is not everything. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now per the sources provided by MrX. Remember, Wikipedia is not in a hurry to create or delete an article. This individual garnered attention for their role as a survivor of the Douglas High shooting and for her role as a gun control advocate. This individual, at this point, is not going to remain a low-profile individual as described in WP:BLP1E criteria 2. We can always revisit this issue within a month or two and determine notability. If it is deleted, we can always reexamine notability in the future. CookieMonster755 ✉ 04:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    There's no reason to assume she won't be back into low-profile mode in a month from now. She was one of many students who spoke up. She caught the media's eye (copy-pasted and synthesized into similar stories in multiple outlets). The media's eye often moves on. This being under discussion is a clear case of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. We actually had AfDs on terrorist incidents (with multiple fatalities, some cases even more than this one) in Iraq, India, Africa, and elsewhere - which were close calls (and even, IIRC, some deletes). In this tragic shooting and political aftermath - the multiple spinoff articles are a bit too much. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
it's not systematic bias when the incident (mass murder school shootings) happens repeatedly, predictably and primarily in one Country: The USA. Saying it is systematic bias is a fallacy of faulty comparison. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 23:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • A merge is really more of a delete vote, for which I think there is no basis. And I think the basis for the merge is way off -- it's like saying Gonzalez is only notable in terms of a past shooting event, and what really is the case, is that she has become an active advocate for greater gun control, and is clearly notable in that regard.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 17:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I mean no disrespect as a lot of other people jump at the chance to be in the spotlight for other reasons as well (just look at Chris Crocker). Some like Chris are a success, others not so much. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
If you mean no disrespect, why are you comparing her to that person? And calling him a success? So she's a failure? When you're in a hole, stop digging. Drmies ( talk) 18:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm saying that not everyone passes WP:LASTING just for being in the news. I also like to assume good faith when it comes to other's comments. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
A better target for merging would be Never Again MSD. Natureium ( talk) 20:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
By that rationale we should probably delete Chesley Sullenberger too, as "there's nothing to say about this person outside the context" of landing a plane on the Hudson river. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 21:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Please read WP:WAX. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

*Merge - This, like the other hastily created spin-offs, is textbook WP:BLP1E and too soon. I will never understand why it is so difficult to wait for the notability of a subject to be certain without their handy-dandy crystal ball. Sure, you read about her online a few days ago, but you are not doing her, or our readers, any favors by turning the encyclopedia into a second-rate news source on subjects who may only be notable for a brief time. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Given, she is still receiving coverage and this has the best chance of lasting significance, I will change to weak keep. Sadly, this will not be a decent encyclopedic article for a long time but that does not seem to concern many editors anymore. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 15:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge - Notable in the context of a single event, i.e. BLP1E. Every speech she gives will be a result of being a shooting survivor, that is all she is in the eyes of the media. Not suitable for a standalone article. Mr rnddude ( talk) 01:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - notable, meets policy and intuition. History in the making, not a single event, an ongoing event. Verified twitter following of >275000, enough said, she’s officially notable. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. ev ( talk) 03:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Violates WP:NPOV. ImYourTurboLover ( talk) 04:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I think a delete vote here is non-neutral editing, perhaps even biased. The article itself appears neutral as all sources cited are considered reliable. ev ( talk) 04:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
She's not just a survivor but an influential activist.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
That source also mentions Cameron Kasky and Ryan Deitsch though. It isn't an indicator of lasting notability. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
More coverage here on what is clearly a national issue; the "one year later" requirement is nonsense.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, she was one of several students who spoke out during that planned event. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's obvious that the articles about David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez, and Never Again MSD are trying to leverage Wikipedia's high visibility to promote them rather than including whatever information about them in the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article their actual notability, such as it is, would justify, and perhaps creating pages with those names to redirect to the main shooting article. I'm frankly disgusted by this. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. – Athaenara ✉ 18:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    Whoa. How about assuming good faith? I created one of those articles because it is a highly notable subject, not because I was trying to promote anything. - Mr X 🖋 18:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I agree. Creating all of these articles are trying to push a platform for high school students. Natureium ( talk) 20:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
That's an essay, not a policy. If the article is neutral, the subject is notable and the sources are excellent, then it's perfectly fine if a Wikipedia article happens to tell the world about a noble cause. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 21:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Do we have articles countering such arguments as might be found in articles such as David Hogg (activist), Emma Gonzalez, and Never Again MSD? I was able to find School shooting#Armed classrooms. Are there others? Bus stop ( talk) 23:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. After reviewing the article again and the Never Again MSD entry, I think this would be appropriate for a merger. 14:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep We have a fundamental choice to make here (I arrived on this page from Google. I was looking for reliable info about this person and was happily surprised that Wikipedia had an article about her). We delete this article and let Everipedia take the lead, and be what Wikipedia used to be at the peak of its success. Or we keep this article and let this article grow (by following our quality standards when it goes to referencing and writing, obviously). -- Deansfa ( talk) 03:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep After appearances at the CNN town hall as well as her iconic speech, I feel like she has wide notability. The lorax ( talk) 04:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She has national notability as one of the leaders of a national movement that is building behind the Parkland survivor adolescents. Definitely notable and ongoing. As opposed to posthumous pages of the victims (ex: Peter Wang (cadet)), her story is also just starting. She's only going to become more notable as this movement progresses. Gwenhope ( talk) 05:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep—judging by how much striking out is done on this page I'd say this is a borderline case. I'm concerned about giving favored treatment for one side of an argument based on sentiments in the wake of sorrow over the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School. But there is inarguably a groundswell of support for one side in what I personally feel remains a complex issue with solutions that do not derive from only one side in this American debate. An article on this individual is only fitting because she has emerged as a spokesperson, one of many, for a side in that debate. Bus stop ( talk) 06:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
It's not like the *&#*&*$&*$&#*$ fuzzy teddy-bears Wayne LaPierre and Dana Loesch do not have pages. WP:otherthings, I know, but wth. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 23:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I'd say that she has not emerged as an individual more so than any of the other students involved in Never Again MSD. As a collective, they are notable, so they can and should be covered collectively in that article. But at this time I continue to view individual pages as redundant. Why don't we have an article for Cameron Kasky, for example? He made just as big a splash with his questions toward Rubio at the CNN event, and he is by most reports the person who started the group in the first place. If in a few months Emma and David really do distinguish themselves above and beyond their involvement in the larger group, then we can write them their own articles then. PrimaPrime ( talk) 21:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
This is a raw issue and we should be conciliatory. It is a borderline case. Should she have an article or should she not have an article? It is not an utterly invalid argument that her recent activities warrant the existence of an article on this person. I think this question can be revisited at a later time. But for now I think it is constructive to let the article grow on its own. I don't see the important need to place this material within the context of the Never Again MSD article or the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article. Bus stop ( talk) 01:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • There is a difference between passing mentions though and WP:DEPTH. So we know that she gave a speech in regards to the event along with other survivors, and we know that she spoke at the CNN town hall along with other survivors. All of this seems like it is in the context of the event which is why a merge to Never Again MSD would make more sense. If she emerges from that movement as a leader then that would be different context. As far as I can see she has not been singled out by sources for anything other than this one event. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I noticed that as well. The standard being applied by those arguing against is stratospheric. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 10:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Bit of a problem with your theory Geo Swan. Here, have a spanner in your works: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wang (cadet). Male, BLP1E, very strong deletion pressure, facing even harsher scrutiny than this article here. Better luck next time. Mr rnddude ( talk) 10:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
If at all we have a number of editors who chip with retention !votes on female subjects. In this case, two male students have been nominated as well. They are all in WP:ONEEVENT realm, and probably won't remain in the public eye after the news coverage of this event dies down - as all coverage dies down. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:43, 25 February 2018 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emma_Gonzalez&oldid=1137826831"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE