Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janis Babson

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. (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 00:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Janis Babson

Janis Babson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I initially speedied this as an A7, but then changed my mind and thought I should shoot for consensus instead. The issue is that the subject is "notable" primarily for donating her eyes for corneal transplants after her death; to me, that doesn't constitute a very convincing claim that she actually belongs in an encyclopedia.

Further, although there are a couple of references about her, there are many more which are either personal blog entries (failing reliable source rules) or references which merely confirm the existence of various groups and other people mentioned in the article while not mentioning the putative subject at all. For instance, the sentence "The Babson's consented and on May 31,1961, the article "Little Janis" appeared in the paper under Burke's "Under the Hill" column." is referenced with a link which confirms that a journalist named Tim Burke wrote a column titled "Under the Hill", but which fails to provide any confirmation that he ever wrote one word about Janis — which means that the article isn't even as properly referenced as it might seem, either.

So between the fact that genuine references are lacking, and the fact that she only ever actually had maybe 15 minutes of "fame" for an action that wouldn't ordinarily be expected to get someone into an encyclopedia anyway, I don't really see how this is anything but a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. There have been two published books written about her (the existence of which can both be confirmed independently ([1], [2])), so meets WP:BASIC. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Harley Hudson (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:EFFECT. Person is subject of newpaper articles, events, republished books ([3]) "One girl changed so many lives", "Ottawa Sun", April 11, 2011 and fostering continued donations of organs, Dying Wish Lives On, Jessica Young,"The Daily Press", 2009([4]). Bobm217(talk)

I am Janis Babson's sister. Her story appeared in Reader's Digest in 1963 as "The Triumph of Janis Babson" and was later released in full book form as "A Little Girl's Gift" by Lawrence Elliott. It has been issued in 13 languages and read by people around the world, who, to this day, seek out the Babson family for information on Janis and where they can get the books. The family and the author have just released a new edition of "A Little Girl's Gift" and held a media conference in Ottawa on May 27 to launch the book and celebrate the 50 years that have passed since Janis' death and the many lives she has changed in that period. She did not have "15 minutes of fame" and is remembered far beyond the family to this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.107.20 (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to withdraw the nomination if somebody who doesn't have a conflict of interest with regard to the article subject were to improve the article with enough reliable sourcing to demonstrate sustained and lasting (rather than temporary) notability that's properly verifiable. But I'm afraid that improperly sourced assertions that people still ask for copies of the book 50 years later, by a person who identifies herself as the article subject's sister, simply don't cut it until there's actually independent media coverage (and Facebook pages don't count) about the book being reissued — because in reality, I'm still not convinced that the primary purpose of this article, as written, wasn't to function as an advertisement for the book instead of a neutral article about a person who would ever actually get included in a more traditional and less crowdsourced encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. This is very notable although the article as it stands needs a lot of re-editing. werldwayd (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be notable based on coverage illustrating a significant effect of her life. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

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.