Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Giles

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 no consensus. Applying WP:ONEEVENT is seldom a clear-cut matter; reasonable people can disagree (and here they do) about whether this is indeed a "one event situation" or whether the subject warrants an article of her own essentially for the reasons provided by Ronnotel. At this time, there's no consensus for deletion, but with a few months' hindsight, it might be easier to evaluate whether "the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one".  Sandstein  17:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Giles

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

Per WP:ONEEVENT. 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. John Asfukzenski (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep From WP:ONEEVENT: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Is the event highly significant? Yes, it gets thousands of hits in the reliable sources. According to multiple sources, the viability of ACORN is now in question because of this event. Was Ms. Giles' role a large one? Undeniably. It was her idea from the start and the entire premise of the event depends on her actions. Ronnotel (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the neutrality of the article is improved. Eeekster (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Ronnotel that the event was highly significant in that it gets thousands of hits and that the viability of ACORN has been questioned. But the subject herself doesn't seem exceptionally notable; if this is her claim to fame, shouldn't she just be folded into a subsection of the ACORN article? As it stands now, the substantive portion of the article on Ms. Giles is two sentences to the effect that she is a 20 year old journalism student who studies at Florida International University and writes for BigGovernment.com. The referenced excerpt from WP:ONEEVENT states "a separate article is generally appropriate", but there isn't much else generally to note about Ms. Giles. If her notability was only her idea to participate in a video pretending to be a prostitute to see what she could elicit from ACORN social workers, I'm thinking it's more appropriate to include her in the ACORN article instead.--AzureCitizen (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, she's also recently become the subject of a $5M lawsuit by ACORN for her actions. And as such, has becoming a cause celebre among conservatives and free speech proponents. This is more than just a student journalism project. If she wasn't notable before this, I would submit that ACORN's reaction has made her so. Ronnotel (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can definitely see what you're driving at, with regard to there being much interest in her right now because of the battle over ACORN and her cause celebre status with conservatives and some free speech proponents. But as it stands right now apart from the ACORN mess and lawsuit, she is just a young college student majoring in a certain subject attending a certain university and working as columnist at a .Com. If someone searches her name on Wikipedia and it links directly to the subsection article on ACORN, and that subsection includes the facts above (that she goes to college, and writes as a columnist), can we really say that is insufficient and her notability requires a separate biographical article for her? Surely there are tens of millions of people who it could be said "go to X school, are majoring in X, and do X for work." Is there anything, apart from the ACORN drama, that makes her notable? As such, does her wikipedia information really need to be listed apart (separate) from the ACORN article, in another article which says the same thing? --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You forget to note that she originated the idea for the ACORN sting. The amount of people she has affected with her story is staggering. She came up with the 2nd most important story of the year. I for one am very interested in her story and not having to dredge through other articles to have a focus on her and her thinking, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.124.55 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete unless she becomes notable for something else. This one event isn't enough notability for an article. JohnWBarber (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ONEEVENT and Ronnotel. Her notability has definitely increased, especially now that ACORN has filed their lawsuit. Taking that into consideration, along with her development of the original idea, involvement in the undercover videos and their far-reaching consequences, she has enough merit to warrant a separate article as noted in WP:ONEEVENT. - Neo3DGfx (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and put any content not already in acorn controversy article there. bfigura said it: she has zero notability outside of this event, and the real event is the alleged illegal behavior of acorn, the political reaction to it, lawsuit etc. shes just the trigger, so she deserves a mention in the main article, until she does more than appear on talking heads shows.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I came here to this page this morning thinking I would say delete based on subject notability being only from a single event, but fully realizing that someday in the future, the well-cited info on Ms. Giles would be likely to be recycled should she ever become more notable due to a second notable item. However, after just reading the WP:NOTABILITY (OneEvent section) it is generally appropriate to keep the article in the specific narrow case where the event is significant and the individuals role in the event was a large one. So I would say, keep it. N2e (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete 80 percent of the article is nothing more than stuff that can be found here. Only two sentences in the entire article actually discuss who she is. I honestly cannot believe this is even debatable. It fails WP:1E by a mile. Richard (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy (assuming that one is kept, which it looks like it likely will be at the moment). --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge there is almost nothing here about her--in fact, looking at the refs, i can find it impossible to actually find anything about her. (though there are sources available--see GNews). This is hardly a NPOV article, as it pretends the group sponsoring her involved are neutral political organizations, which they are not, as their own web pages demonstrate [1] But the importance in anh case is the story.
  • Merge with ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy or Keep and revise (a poorly written article is not grounds for deletion). Hannah has been in the news since the story broke, and it's obvious this story will continue as ACORN's funding is challenged and the suits against Hannah play out in the courts. In short, we've seen a lot of her already at the national and international level (BBC), and there's no indication this will let up. Rklawton (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it totally amazing that Wikipedia would even be discussing deleting the article on the person who originated the entire idea of the ACORN sting. Without her, the entire ACORN story would not have emerged. I would say she would be #2 on the list of Time's Person Of The Year award, with President Obama as #1. And Wikipedia is talking about deleting here? Amazing. What is happening to such a great concept as Wikipedia? Whether or not you like the news, it is a HUGE news story and I know it will be documented everywhere, but Wikipedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.124.55 (talk • contribs)
CommentWhile it looks like the story is big enough to allow for an article on this person, i think this article should be relatively small, as its about HER (she hasnt actually done much yet), not the sting and its aftermath, which should be the major article, along with the ACORN article. and, whoa, you just showed your bias here. ACORN is a bit player on the national scene, and their previous "scandal" was a politically hyped up non-event. Ms. Giles as person of the year? thats beyond the pale. Even if this results in the total takedown of ACORN, and even if ACORN has organizational complicity here, so what? Unless we find evidence that ACORN is a branch of al-qaeda, or space aliens, etc, this is not that important. Ms Giles is NOT that notable. if ACORN was so vulnerable, this would have happened eventually. shes not woodward and bernstein. and WP IS documenting this event, and we DO have to debate this. How about articles for each of the defendants, or the lawyers on either side, or the cameraman shooting the film? there is a threshhold for notability for each article, each judged on its own merits. WP is doing fine, thank you.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on comment Perhaps I was a wee bit over the top (attempt at hint of sarcasm ;\ ). However, the beauty of Wikipedia is the ability to freely expose both sides of an issue. The idea was simple, but then again she did follow through, etc. My desire is to make sure that the originator of an idea is documented. I do concur the article should be small and relate relevant bio info and appreciate the feedback. I sense a consensus forming. Thanks for the response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.124.55 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The ONEEVENT concept is moot now that ACORN has filed a $5M lawsuit against Ms Giles, accusing her of breaking Maryland law in the taping of conversations. It turns this into an even bigger event concerning free speech, the press, and privacy within tax-funded organizations. Ignoring subjective matters for a minute - as a matter of law, media attention, and public concern that will now be focused on the legal outcome, this has also now become a media rights and a test of whistleblower rights as it relates to taping a conversation. If moved to Federal court, the stakes could be larger. The actions of Ms Giles were also the precipitant for Congressional action as well as many other Federal and state agencies and major corporations in stripping both money and power from one of the most powerful national political organizations in the country, and a strong player in the election of the sitting President. One must not only look at ONEEVENT, but at the social, economic, and political significance of that one event. If it is enough that the Congress of the United States can put together and pass a partisan-free bill based on the results of Ms. Giles investigations and pass it within days, the event should be significant enough for Wiki. Since she was the impetus and played at least a 50% part in it, it is hard to diminish her role. ONEEVENT is not relevant for these reasons. Political purpose aside, Ms. Giles is a huge story in journalism at the present and is under discussion in many areas of journalism. That too makes Ms. Giles Wiki-able. I would agree however, that information concerning sponsoring groups should be eliminated unless and/or until they become relevant to who she is or she becomes strongly attached to the group.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shardman (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP IT. Both sides are shown along with a note that since the activity was illegal, represenatatives of ACORN are filling suit against those who obtained it; not those who commited it onder their employ. How much more more real can that be??
above moved from talk page to project page by Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment she is no Gavrilo Princip, though comparing articles is not the best way to proceed. her article needs to be no larger than his i would say.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is NOT a one event topic. She has created a situation where an old and famous organization has been stripped clean of federal tax dollars AND that organization has filed a bogus lawsuit against her. She is participating in a new form of investigative journalism that this article does not relate and she is part of an event. I think the argument that she is a non-notable person involved in singular event oversimplifies what she has done and is still the part of--of an on-going event.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love the irrational biases shown here. the lawsuit is not "bogus", and anyway who are we to say that its bogus? last time i heard, i cannot record someone without their knowledge unless i am a police officer or govt agent with probable cause. ever hear of the constitution? it applies equally to those we agree AND disagree with. there is validity in theory to the lawsuit, just as there is a political reality that could mean ACORN is shut down regardless of their culpability, or the fairness of it. thats all reportable and notable, and can be reported with NPOV fairly easily. and i never said the whole subject is a single event. its not. but she is still not notable beyond her role, though that, as i said, at this point justifies a small article, but not a puff piece.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So let's see. You are pointing out that, in your opinion, other people biases are "irrational". Does that imply that your biases are rational? Everyone has a bias, whether they admit it or not. How do you know the lawsuit is not "bogus"? What evidence do provide for your conclusion. You provide a conclusion without evidence. All you have provided for your conclusion that in your opinion (not fact mind you) that you believe the lawsuit is not "bogus." On top of that you provide the conclusion that other people's biases are "irrational". Of course, you do not provide any evidence or even an example of other people's biases as irrational. You don't even make it clear what "biases" you are referring to. You just proclaim without evidence or fact that other people (I'm assuming anyone that does not agree with you) have "irrational" biases. Under this form of illogical argumentation, I could argue that you biases are "irrational" also. I don't need evidence or support of any form or fashion--just my opinion. This is known as the "I said it, it must be true" argument. It is a very, very weak form of defense. Also, you comment that "you can't record someone" without their knowledge is simply a factually incorrect statement. It has NOTHING to do with the article about whether the Hannah Giles article should stay or go. It is also factually flat out wrong. Now, in most states of the Union you CAN record someone without permission completely legally. That is a fact. Probable cause only applies to government officials, not to private citizens such as Hannah Giles. It does not apply to Hannah Giles. That is fact. And "probable cause" is not even the focus of the lawsuit. Now, there is a law in the State of Maryland that may or may not apply to her. That is the focus of the lawsuit. What you state above is a misrepresentation of the lawsuit's substance. Yeah, I read all about the constitution in law school and I heard correctly, unlike you, that the Fourth Amendment applies to cops, prosecutors, and others acting on behalf of the state, etc--not private citizens such as Hannah Giles. So your argument concerning "probable cause" is "bogus" to steal a phrase. So please don't attack other posters when you comments are "irrational" and your arguments are "bogus".--98.196.129.137 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the lawsuit wasnt bogus. i said it appeared to have some theoretical validity. I dont care if youre justice roberts, your opinions are not fact here. you said "bogus lawsuit". until a reliable source describes it as bogus, or until its thrown out of court or decided entirely in ms giles favor, its neither bogus nor legit. so thats the bias, saying its "bogus", without sources to back it up. of course i have a bias, and its clearly pro acorn, but i would never dream of adding to the main article or commenting here without seriously considering all points of view. I would welcome any sourced comments on the lawsuit.i have already agreed that she deserves her own article, given the degree of coverage. I think its important that our language in the talk pages show our ability to have an NPOV despite any personal bias we may have. Its also important to not misrepresent sourced comments and try to make sources say what they dont. thats an endemic problem at WP, people from all sorts of perspectives do it, and its wrong no matter who does it. I hope that we can keep to a minimum undue coverage of any of the sides here. and im sorry for using the word irrational, and apologize for that. that is not civil.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm not Justice Roberts, but then again I never claimed to be, therefore, your comment above which references Roberts is merely weak sarcasm and of course your comment is off the subject and irrelevant. It does not boost your argument in anyway. Now, I want to point out one more time. What I wrote about the underlying lawsuit is NOT, as you seem to imply, merely my opinion. It is fact. Probable cause is not the focus of that lawsuit. Probable cause is a term that comes directly from the Constitution and it applies to government officials, not private citizens. You stated otherwise and you were incorrect and I called you on it. The lawsuit is about a specific law in the State of Maryland and the jurisdiction of Maryland is in the minority on the issue of taping a discussion without consent. That is also fact. It is NOT opinion. I repeat: Your stated the lawsuit was about "probable cause" and it is not, and you are wrong. That is a fact. We will see if the lawsuit is valid or not. As the article is written right now the reader would get the impression that it is an open and shut case for ACORN, but that is NOT true. The real question is whether the ACORN workers had a legitimate expectation of privacy and Giles can argue quite strongly that the ACORN workers did NOT have an expectation of privacy. In the videos it is clear that the door was open. People were coming in and out of the room. Some of the ACORN employees were yelling through the open door to other ACORN workers, etc. Also, the information that Giles released is clearly the topic of a public discussion about public policy and that also diminishes the ACORN employees expectation of privacy. Expectation of privacy and the interpretation of a recently passed law in Maryland will be focus of the lawsuit, not as you incorrectly stated probable cause. You were wrong and I called you on it.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the words of the Washington Times: Hannah Giles, the young woman who dressed up and posed as a whore in the BigGovernment.com ACORN child prostitution sting videos, is an aspiring investigative reporter and National Journalism Center intern. You can read her Townhall.com bio here. Not familiar with NJC?. . . Actually, I shouldn't say "aspiring," as she's already accomplished something nobody from 60 Minutes, The New York Times, or any other mainstream media thought to do, and that is find a way to expose the dirty truth behind the closed doors of ACORN. She was able to do that because she asked the right questions, unemcumbered by the liberal conventional wisdom that blinds so many Mainstream Media journalists.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently that's not from the Washington Times... it appeared instead as an editorial in a daily paper called the Examiner, which Wikipedia mentions was initially the subject of some controversy for being delivered free exclusively to white affluent neighborhoods while "majority-black neighborhoods" were not served. Doesn't mean the information is true or false, just worthy to note it's all a matter of perspective when we're talking about an editorial. If you're curious, here is a link to the entry. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct it is the Washington Examiner, my mistake. However, your editorial comment about the distribution of the Examiner is not without error either. The Wikipedia article that you directed editors to did NOT state that majority-black neighborhoods "were not served." That is simply incorrect on your part. It pointed out that they may or not have received distribution and if they did get distribution that distribution might have been light. You misrepresented the comments of the a competing paper to the Examiner, the Washington City Paper. Clearly the The Washington City Paper has a economic interest at stake to deride the reputation of the Examiner since both the City Paper and the Examiner are the two free papers in the D.C. metro area, as opposed to the Post and the Times. Moreover, not only is your comment a misrepresentation of the so-called controversy outlined in the Wikipedia article it very, very far from the point of this particular discussion page--which of course is about whether or not the article on Hannah Giles should stay or go. You did NOT comment on the substance of the quote from the Examiner which is quite straight-forward and speaks directly to the substance of the debate here. That editorial states unequivocally that what Giles did was scoop 60 Minutes and The New York Times and every other mainstream newsroom in the country. I think part of the argument on this page to support the removal of her article is that she is in school, a mere student of journalism. But that is bogus argument. Yes, she is in school and she is young, but she writes articles for the Townhall.com and BigGovernment.com and she is doing original journalism that is beating the holy crap out of the old guys on the block such as 60 Minutes and The New York Times. And her real journalistic work has brought an old corrupt Washington D.C. institution to its knees. That is fact that you choose to ignore. Instead you focused on a bogus complaint by the Washington City Paper, a complaint that really just boils down to the fact that the City Paper is having some of its customers taken by a competitor. Yeah, it is just sour grapes on the City Paper's part and does NOT in anyway diminish the unbelievable accomplishment of Giles who scooped 60 Minutes, et. al. Once again, removing her article would be wrong.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I did read the editorial; my point was that it's actually an editorial from a newspaper of somewhat lesser stature than the Washington Times, and like all editorials, it's just an opinion. No offense, but I didn't find it convincing in terms of the overall argument being debated on this page.--AzureCitizen (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. What did not find convincing? That the Washington City Paper is a cheap rag? That's true of course, but it is not the topic of discussion here. What is the topic of discussion is that Hannah Giles brought down ACORN in a way that neither the Washington Post, The New York Times or 60 Minutes did not do. That's a fact. Now, she is being sued by ACORN under a probably unconstitutional law in Maryland--a law that limits free speech--and she is still in the news and will remain in the news.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Popped on Wiki one last time just to check this page before I head out for five days where I won't have access to the internet. No time to respond in great depth, but essentially my comments near the very top of the thread sum up my take on the issue (please read them if you're interested). I still think that everything that is happening (the video tapings, the release on the internet and the news stories that followed, the acts of Congress and federal entities, the lawsuit, etc) are basically all part of the same event, the "ACORN undercover videos controversy," and that if the article on Ms. Giles only contains a sentence or two of non-notable information (that she is student at X school, majoring in X, doing work for X), then people searching "Hannah Giles" on Wiki should probably get a re-direct to the other article instead until such time there is more notable personal information for her, or there is a second event not a part of the ACORN videos controversy. Otherwise you end up with two articles just duplicating 97% of the same stuff. Just my take on the matter, now I'm out of here, courtesy of the USAR... --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. If we're gonna have an article on her, the fact that she's hot is notable. --Milowent (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- User:Ronnotel has it right. Our policies specifically allows exceptions. The intent of the BLP1e was to protect hapless private individuals, who wanted to remain private individuals -- not self-promoters, like Ms Giles. If she had appeared in the video, and had not agreed to a series of interviews with high-profile commentators I would agree she wouldn't merit coverage here. But she did appear. Her views, motives, etc, are in the public arena. Deleting this article would be a disservice to readers. Some of us may not want to reward self-promoters. But I think that should be irrelevant. Self-promoters who fail to make themselves public figures we should, of course, continue to ignore. Self-promoters who succeed, we should cover, in a non-sensational manner that complies with our policies on neutrality, verifiability and other key policies. Geo Swan (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WRT merging -- what those with an urge to merge overlook is how that erodes the utility of our watchlists. The reader who wants to know when something significant has triggered a change to the Acorn article, but is bored with additional info on Ms Giles, or additional suggestions we really need hot pictures of her, can put the Acorn article on their watchlist, and leave the Hannah Giles article off. And vice versa for her fans and detractors. This would not be possible after a merge, and I consider that a strong argument against a merge. Geo Swan (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the point of watching the two pages, couldn't the same be said for many articles that could be split up? The fact of the matter is that this article simply does not pass WP:BLP1E, which states "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Giles is someone who most certainly will remain low profile after her one event dies down, unless she is involved in another event of significance, in which case a Wikipedia page for her should exist.--Henry talk 21:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure how she can be low profile after this. She's being sued by ACORN for $5 million in a case that's guaranteed to generate headlines. Even without the lawsuit, I doubt she would fade into the background. Ronnotel (talk) 00:44, 2 October 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/Hannah_Giles&oldid=1146674501"