Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shona Holmes (3rd nomination)

Add links
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, but Rename. The consensus here appears to be narrowly in favor of Keeping the article. The primary criticism of the article was WP:BLP1E, which notes that individuals should not have articles if their notability is related to one event (or, as here, to one set of events closely related enough to be considered one for these purposes). Even then, several who recommended Delete noted that a merge would work as well, or that the information should be kept somewhere. Several on the Keep side of the debate also noted the concern, and recommended a rename of the article. So the result is that we have both sides of the debate seeking to keep some of the information by moving it to a new title.

As noted below, the debate on where to move this article should take place on its talk page. The most frequently cited target for such a move was Shona Holmes incident, which seems to be the most neutral of the possible move targets - but that discussion is beyond the scope of this debate.

One final note - the article does need some significant cleaning up, and I'm surprised more people didn't note that here. Again, not material to this closing, but I thought it wise to mention. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shona Holmes

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Shona Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting. This article still has nothing about her and it's been over two months now. This should be deleted. The artcle fails this and this and it's been two months and the article is still the same way. There is no info about herself on the article just something that made the news IE her so called health story.Fire 55 (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I should have mentioned this before. I put the debate she started under the article Health care reform in the United States.--Fire 55 (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are tons of stories like this where a person goes to US to get healthcare or vice versa someone comes to Canada. So why should we give this person her own bio page and not the other people. When in reality we know no more about her than we do the other people. This article is just a story of what see did to go to the US for healthcare. It's not notable.--Fire 55 (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I almost voted merge but having re-read WP:Notable and WP:Not News I think it's going to have to be delete because of this:

    "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."

Though this woman may have received significant coverage at the beginning of the health care debate her importance in proportion to the overall topic is negligible. I can't find any mention of her on any major news outlets or in political discourse at this stage of the game. She made no lasting contribution to the healthcare-reform debate in the US (or Canada as far as I can see). As such, although the article has been much improved and expanded since the first AfD I can't see that any of it is notable. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
completely puzzled by this. Iys not a single event but many. She has repeated these claims not just in numerous TV interviews, but also on web sites promoting politial advertising and lobbying. Her misleading statements are still being perpertrated on the interweb thingy.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong retain or at a minimum rename as per User:flatterworld's suggestion (see below). This lady gave interviews that have featured on TV and in TV commercials and she features prominantly on campaign web sites opposing health care reform in the U.S. if it resembles the system as it exists in Canada. She has appeared as a witness before congress to tell her story (tho again she was not exactly very honest about the condition she had and its seriousness). The health care issue is still one that is very live in the United States and this article is therefore highly topical and enlightening. It should definitely not be deleted.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did put most of the stuff in Health care reform in the United States. This article is about her NOT the debate on health care. See MUST be notable to get her own article. Again they're tons of people who get interviewed on TV, so why is she so special. That's the question here. Why does she deserve her own article.--Fire 55 (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per BLP1E. This is certainly worth mentioning somewhere, but essentially this woman is a sad case who's being used by the extreme right in her country. The article seems to just ram home that she doesn't have cancer - there's nothing there about her. If she turns into a 'Joe The plumber', then perhaps we can have an article. Until then, meh. Delete. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article properly talks about the controversy also. I'd say that as a specific point, this is better than lumping it into a very comprehensive article . It's totally out of place there , as POV overemphasis on one particular example. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if we make the article about her controversy and her case, rather than her as a person? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy Keep and trout the nom. This is the third time they've nominated it, using the same "logic" all three times, with the last time being around a month ago. Also, subject has the notability required ot pass GNG, and BLP1E is out the window considering the interviews she gave, thus showing she has no desire to remain low profile, as BLP1E specifies. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't count the 2nd nom a nom would you?????? Let's do a google news search. What do you get. NOTHING. but ONE story on her court case. The rest are a month old and are just mentioning her.--Fire 55 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I DO count the second, as it came right on the heels of the first. When you didn't get what you wanted, you renominated it for the exact same reasons. And when it was suggested to go to WP:DRV, you went there and again tried to re-fight the AFD. And now, just over a month later, we're back, yet again. And you keep waving WP:BLP1E in my face, but I don't buy that it applies in this situation. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Health care reform in the United States#Shona Holmes Incident. A classic BLP1E. That section contains all we need to say on the topic. Fences&Windows 23:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Now abstaining. Fences&Windows 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (sigh) Am I going to have to remind participants in this {{afd}} that the wikipedia is not solely an American project? Holmes' case triggered vigorous comment up here in Canada. As I pointed out in the first {tl|afd} -- if merge made sense -- there would be multiple targets Comparison of Canadian and American health care systems and Health care in Canada. If an article has multiple targets to which it could be merged, I regard that as a strong argument that those articles should not be merged. Geo Swan (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seeing how I'm not American, you don't need to remind me of that. Make your points without resorting to ad hominem, please. A topic can be covered in more than one place in the encyclopedia; if the Shona Holmes case has relevance to those two articles, then feel free to include material on it in those articles. This doesn't require a merge. Fences&Windows 17:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC) p.s. You can also link to the section in the US health care reform article from those articles. Fences&Windows 17:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And what is the advantage you see in deleting this article? I suggest that deleting the main article on Shona Holmes, and having separate Shona Holmes sections in multiple article will lead to multiple pernicious maintenance problems.
          1. Those separate sections could overlap -- and as they diverged they would likely end up contradicting one another. That is far from ideal.
          2. If we deleted the Shona Holmes article, and added a Shona Holmes incident section to every appropriate releated article, then where would Shona Holmes point? Personally, I think redirection to subsection heading is totally inappropriate in article space, because the current wikimedia software doesn't support operations like "what links here" when the target of a wikilink is a subsection heading. It is far more appropriate to have a central article about her incident, and the separate related articles have just enough about her to set the context to the link to the main article about her and her incidents.
          3. We already have considerable notable content in the main article on Shona Holmes that would not appropriately fit in any of the related articles. Geo Swan (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep or rename -- Holmes is notable, perhaps not as notable as "Joe the plumber", but, up here in Canada you can find lots of people who will react to her name, and remember elements of her story. Last week TVOntario had an hour-long debate on health care. About a minute into the show, prefacing the debate, they played one of Ms Holmes ads. The participants in the debate kept referring to Ms Holmes, and her case. As I watched it I kept thinking, "I am glad that reason prevailed, and we kept this article. Podcasts are here video podcast, audio podcast. Geo Swan (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Up here in Canada I say Shona Holmes and no one know who she is. I live in Canada and the funny thing is I was having a discussion about the Health Care thing with my friends and I brought up Shona Holmes and they all said WHO?? Sorry, but I don't by your point on how people in Canada knows her, since I'm from Canada and no one I know knows who see is. Nevertheless they are still only mentioning her in the sense of the health care debate and not her. Do you know her birthdate, where see was born, her education, her job background? Those what NEEDS to be in a bio to make it notable. --Fire 55 (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover technically this is only a 2nd nomination. Just look at the 2nd nom.--Fire 55 (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I secretly read the arguments after I said that.  :) Therein I learned that not only was this the third nom, but the third nom from the same person. After the nom failed I would have expected him to take the discussion as to what to do with the article to talk. Alas, this person felt it was more important to AfD *again* rather than do something productive. In all honesty this article should be, at most, renamed to Shona Holmes incident or somesuch, which is a discussion that could be carried out on talk, rather than in yet another AFD. (ps: No one said that the "bad taste" comment was connected to the fact I chose keep. That was your assumption.) - BalthCat (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of this article is already in that article (health care reform in US). So the main point of this article is there. Which means this article is useless and should be deleted.--Fire 55 (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the impact in Canada of a Canadian's actions be in a broad American-topic article? The article is about ALL Healthcare reform in the US. That article will have to expand over time, pushing out the already substantial entry on Shona Holmes. It is a poor choice for relocation. - BalthCat (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still the WP:ONEVENT that I thought it was in the first AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Precedent-setting law-suit initiated in 2005; (2) Allowed her case to be used in ads shown in the US health care debate. Could you please explain why you don't recognize these as two events? Geo Swan (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that I can answer this: It is one event because the event is her claim that she could not receive medical care in a timely manner in Ontario due to the health care system and the ads simply used this case as fodder. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - WP:BLP1E, "biography" that is deviod of biographical information; article seems like a coatrack for a debate on health care. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The coatrack essay raises some interesting points. I wouldn't suggest we ignore it just because it is an essay, and not a policy or guideline. But I do think it is reasonable to remind those who call upon it as if it were a policy that it is not a policy. I think it is reasonable to ask those who call upon its authority as if it were a policy to be more specific. Note: the essay does not recommend deletion as a solution to a perceived coatrack problem. It recommends trimming the biased sections. Deletion is advice reserved for when good faith efforts to fix the article failed. Let me point out that there are no concerns of bias raised on the article's talk page. So, I suggest that calling for deletion, on the authority of the non-policy WP:COATRACK is extremely premature. When people call upon the authority of coatrack I think it is reasonable to expect them to be specific about which passages in the article they think are problematic. I think it is reasonable to expect them to be specific about which of the dozen or so example in the essay they think most closely resemble the article under discussion. So tell me, is it the "wongojuice"? Geo Swan (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that having an article under the name of one person does not make it a biograpaphy. The article as it stands merely says who she is and why she achieved some (albeit small) notability. And that I think is enough. In fact I would resist any attempt to make it a biography. Adding her age and year of birth is an indication that some people are trying to make it biographical. These things are not related to her notoriaty.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope no one is doubting that people want to know about her, she has an intriguing story, I just don't think this is the forum for people to find out about her. Interest doesn't make it encyclopedic. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People want to know about her because they want to know the circumstances of her claim about having her treatment delayed. What supposedly happens in cases like hers is a major component of the US health care debate. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Textbook BLP1E. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per BLP1E. There are plenty of sources, some of which do cover the subject. But she is notable for one event and one event only (apologies for mixing the commonly understood meaning of notability, rather than WP:N in there) and the article content reflects that. There is copious coverage of the salient event and then the sources mostly discuss the health care debate. I would prefer a merger over deletion, but I don't think deletion is out of bounds. Protonk (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aren't you overlooking her precedent setting 2007 court case? It is the first challenge of its kind of Ontario's health care system. Signifcant money hangs on the result. Could you please explain why you don't recognize this as a separate "event"? Geo Swan (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not overlooking it, per se. but we have this problem where we build biographical articles out of news stories and analysis on related events, leaving the biographies impossible to square w/ NPOV or even make complete as a record of their life. I don't think we can have a fundamentally neutral article on someone who is only known because and through news reports of a tragedy, scandal or goof (both because and through are important words there). What we have are articles about scandals organized by persons. Regardless of the import of the scandal, the article should probably go. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I really hope you will make a greater effort to explain this view of neutrality. Almost exactly four years ago, in the very first {{afd}} I participated in, a senior administrator made an assertion I found deeply surprising. She asserted that the wikipedia should not have any articles on topics related to Guantanamo, because those topics were "inherently POV", and could only serve as opportunities for "America-bashing". I thought that assertion was unsupportable. I thought about it and decided that topics are not biased. Topics don't have an "inherent POV". Only our representations can be biased -- or neutral. I decided that there was no topic that couldn't be presented from an acceptably neutral point of view, provided those working on it make enough effort -- make enough effort and are open to the questions and criticism of civil challengers, and willing to make compromises.
        • So, about this particular topic, what do regard as the insurmountable barrier to neutrality? Are you able to single out a passage that you regard as the one that most lapses from neutrality? If so, are you sure that, after a discussion, a compromise that was neutral couldn't be arrived at?
        • I am frankly confused as to how you connected the question as to whether she was known for multiple events with this general neutrality problem -- that applies to all biographical articles. Should I ask you to try to explain this? Geo Swan (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry that some other admin made a totally erroneous statement in another AfD. All I'm explaining is my reasoning behind why I apply BLP1E in AfDs. I also will note that the reason why an inherently neutral article is impossible is completely different than the assertion that admin gave. Guantanamo is an example where views (and sources) are polarized, but not scarce. This subject is something of an example of where sources are scarce with respect to the person but not scarce with respect to the incident. So the article on the person gets written as an article on the incident, which makes it exceedingly difficult if not impossible to write an appropriate article. Protonk (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the reply. I still don't understand why you don't see this as a BLP2e. I would still welcome an explanation of the BLP1e interpretation from you. I would still welcome a specific passage that you thought lapsed from neutrality. I will point out that that deletion policies recommend addressing concerns over neutrality on the talk page -- not tried by anyone with this article -- not deletion? Geo Swan (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep with or without a rename. This is evocative of the various 'stories' circulating during the US presidential campaign. People look to Wikipedia to separate fact from fiction and get the full story. That's what a respected encyclopedia is supposed to provide. This deserves its own article, but perhaps something like "Shona Holmes Controversy' would be a better title. Flatterworld (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Abort this article because of the 1 event rule in WP:BLP per the Testmaster! Boo Yah!! Testmasterflex (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but rename). There are a few issues that complicate here. First, as I understand it, "Shona Holmes" is not the name that this woman uses in her day-to-day life, but her maiden name. This, for me, alleviates some of the WP: BLP concerns. Second, this has been a big enough controversy that the public deserves a balanced one-stop account -- something that wikipedia should aim to provide. One way or the other, however, the article should be renamed, because it is not and never will be a biography of this woman, but rather a description of an episode that brought her 15 minutes. So at the very least something like Shona Holmes health insurance controversy. Bucketsofg 18:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a total change of heart - keep, but rename to focus on the controversy, not on her. There's bucket loads of coverage, both in the US and Canada, and the press coverage precedes her use as a poster-child for the American Right. My previous opposition was, I recognise, partly based on IDONTLIKEIT, as I think her case is ridiculous. Fences&Windows 01:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename, e.g. to Shona Holmes health insurance controversy as suggested by Bucketsofg. It shouldn't be set up as a BLP (per WP:BLP and Wikipedia:BIO1E#People_notable_only_for_one_event) but should explicitly refer in the title to the particular issue relating to the media attention Ms. Holmes has received. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've asked the participants in this discussion, who voiced a BLP1e, without addressing the counter-arguments, that this article is a BLP2e or BLP3e, to return here to explain why they discounted those counter-arguments. Bearian did address those counter-arguments -- but on my talk page. He or she states the 2007 lawsuit can't be precedent-setting until it is concluded. IANAL, but it seems to me that if a lawsuit is in an area where no existing precedent exists, a lawsuit can be described as "precedent-setting", before its conclusion, because either way it concludes will be precedent setting. It does not require a lapse from WP:CRYSTAL to describe this lawsuit as precedent-setting. Geo Swan (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A lawsuit only creates a precedent if it results in a substantive change to the current legal status of such a case. That is, if the court finds in favour of the government in this lawsuit, it's not setting a precedent — it's simply upholding the status quo. It will be precedent-setting if, and only if, it finds in favour of Holmes. And even if it does, it'll be the court case that's notable, not Holmes herself. Chaoulli v. Quebec is notable, frex, but that doesn't automatically mean that Jacques Chaoulli automatically needs his own separate article too — that article really, truly only exists to retroactively justify this one. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • WRT to "precedent setting" -- you make a good point that if the court upholds the status quo it is not, actually, a precedent. I withdraw that description. Nevertheless, it is an important challenge. Without regard to what some of us here might personally think of the merits of her case, the half dozen references about her case, included in the article, all describe it as a serious challenge. I believe that is enough to establish it as an "event", for the purposes of evaluating whether this article is a BLP1e.
        • Similarly, If her story was open and shut, if it only involved her appearing in an ad, offering a cautionary tale of her experience of Canadian health care, for Americans, and she hadn't reported death threats, and if various sources hadn't pointed out that the medical condition she claimed was a form of life-threatening brain cancer wasn't life-threatening, and wasn't brain cancer, I could see someone asserting that her appearing in the ad was a single event. But I am mystified as to why the death threats, and the medical experts who point out the discrepancies in her claims are not recognized as separate events. Geo Swan (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a single-event person. No evidence of legal influence of her lawsuit. Mukadderat (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You crazy Canucks. Enough coverage over a long enough time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment When people make claims for political reasons that get wide attention in the media , it is reasonable that those who see these claims will want some reliable NPOV source of information. With our wide diversity of editors, we are uniquely suited to this role. The only thing necessary is to show that media use of the event is not transient and local, and I think that has been shown. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DGG's analysis that this case (not the person) has generated plenty of coverage, Wikipedia should have an article on it (nowhere does it say Wikipedia is Not Snopes), and that it would place an UNDUE burden in other articles. Abductive (reasoning) 22:30, 30 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shona_Holmes_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1136468537"