Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaz Demille-Jacobsen

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 delete. This could have been a no consensus, but there is a very strong hint of an attack about the article, for example a lot of unsourced commentary about the validity of academic qualifications, so I'm going with delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaz Demille-Jacobsen[edit]

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

I was tempted to CSD G10 this, but I thought I'd let the wider community have a look too. Seems to be nothing but an attack on a possible hoaxer. Every source seems to be from the "chasers" website. Nothing from a reliable source. The-Pope (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see nothing but an attack page. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person is well mentioned in the media and on dozens of other sites excluding the ones listed and wiki mirrors. But it definitly needs a few more independent refs and I'll add some later.--Dmol (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments. I've added a few more references, and do agree that many are similar. But looking through the ones listed on the original StopKaz website, I noticed that it includes good sources such as her birth certificate, a copy of the letter received from the DeMille (acting) family, and a church flyer detailing some of her claims. But most revealing is http://www.docstoc.com/docs/30493360/World-Trades-Center-and-a-Miracle-or-two where she herself makes these extrodinary claims. Similar claims are made by her on http://911digitalarchive.org/smithsonian/details/6523 . I agree the article could appear as an attack page, and maybe NPOV or COI tags should be added until fixed. But I think most of the claims are well supported and again feel that the article should stay here. Thanks.--Dmol (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page seems factual and well referenced. The person herself has been the subject of multiple newspaper articles and is clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still seems to be a bunch of blogs, primary sources and other self published sources. I hope that the closing admin looks closely at the excessively poor references that have been supplied, and not just does a !vote count. The-Pope (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like this and this are not blogs. --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles are not blogs and clearly show notability.--Dmol (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the reference should be direct to the newspaper and not to the unreliable source, which could have whatever commentary it wants (contrary to Wikipedia's BLP policy) around the article. The stopkaz website should be there only as a single external link or as a reference to a comment of "her activities are being tracked by a website that has uncovered many inconsistencies in her story" or similar - but even that isn't really appropriate, as it is the primary source.

I have added to the article the two sources posted by Dmol above. They are not from stopkaz so they should help you feel better about the sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are both still self-published. Anyone could have written them. They are not a reliable source.The-Pope (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self published?!?!? One of them is from the Smithsonian archive! You really aren't interested in evaluating these sources at all, are you? You just want the article deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – marginally-notable biography. Note that the Smithsonian entry seems to be from an area of the archive that invites public submissions.[1] Not sure whether these submissions are fact-checked by Smithsonian staff or not. Bwrs (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely true that the Smithsonian article (and the other) were user-submitted, i.e., written by the subject herself, and should not be used as if the content was factual. I very much doubt if it is. The significance of those two links is to verify that 1) this woman claims to have been a 9-11 victim, relating her story in great and often contradictory detail, and 2) she refers to herself as "Dr." or "Ph.D." --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:RS and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources, especially the sections on self-published and primary sources to understand why we shouldn't be using sources like that - especially on a BLP. This is an encylopedia, not a witch hunt site. The verification of the alleged fraud should be covered in an independent reliable source, not done here.The-Pope (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2010 (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.