Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Lang

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. Davewild (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Lang

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

Delete It is with some hesitance that I place this article for deletion. Looking at the talk page, I see that it is apparently part of a course assignment at a university. However, the course description includes "prepare students to be intelligent users of media". This article clearly fails WP:BLP1E. The person is otherwise completely non-notable. Her only other claim to fame is winning an award for journalism in 2008. See [1] and search for "Michelle Lang". Also take note that only one other winner of this award category has an article on this project, that being Michelle Shephard, and she has multiple other claims to fame. This is a really weak. Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see why winning a national journalism award, given under the aegis of Canada's principal newspaper association, isn't enough to demonstrate notability. And BLP1E rather clearly doesn't apply when one of the claims to notability is as a journalist killed on the job. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Getting killed a on job doesn't make you famous. My point about the award is that making a claim to fame based on the award is weak when nobody else who has won the same award has an article on this project solely because they've won the award. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The award is identified elsewhere on Wikipedia as the top newspaper/journalism award in Canada, which would be a strong indicator of notability. The fact that our coverage of a field is currently lousy and incomplete is no justification for keeping it that way. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does the article "clearly" fail BLP1E? It does not even fall under the scope of BLP, so how can it fail that policy? Perhaps the nominator meant WP:BIO1E. However, I think that even if the subject had not been killed so tragically, according to Wikipedia:Notability (people) she would still be notable, by dint of the Basic criteria and the Additional criteria / Any Biography, #1. Some other Canadians who are not notable for any specific events or such, but mainly as recipients of the same prestigious national award, are Guy Badeaux, Vic Roschkov, Sr., Val Ross, Jay Scott, and James Travers. --Lambiam 20:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also think that the National Award Or the widespread coverage of her death make her notable (See also Category:Journalists killed while covering the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)). Together, the two separate events clearly exceed WP:BIO1E. First Light (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Perhaps I shouldn't have looked at the nominator's user page and seen the bravado about disruption because I can't seem to wonder now about that motivation, even though I'm supposed to always presume "good faith." I suggest that is why it is critical for Wikipedians to watch how we present ourselves to others on our user pages, which is another basic premise of Wikipedia user spaces. To address the issues: First, Lang is dead and so WP:BLP couldn't even apply. Therefore, the nomination should be thrown out on that point alone. Second, if notability is of question, I would suggest you consider the following: Michelle Lang was FIRST Canadian journalist and only the SECOND female to have died covering the war in Afghanistan. Morever, her death is illustrative of the dangers for journalists in the "embedded" system of reporting. She would therefore be of interest to those in the future who are looking at war correspondents and female war correspondents. I think these points alone make her noteworthy enough for encyclopedic coverage. Third, I speak on behalf of the university project mentioned. I am the instructor who assigned this stub to a student editor to expand, and this student will be soon adding these edits in the next phase of our project. Crtew (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Not powerfully notable, but notable nonetheless. I added a ref. for her award. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, particularly Crtew. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:GNG] is fully met, no violations here, the person meets the standards for WP:Notability. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2011 (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.