Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Huntsman

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 Move to Pleasant Grove child murders. There seems to be consensus that the event is notable, but not the perpetrator. TigerShark (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned at DRV to No Consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Huntsman[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Megan Huntsman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Patent WP:BLP1E. ––FormalDude talk 03:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Utah. ––FormalDude talk 03:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    KeepMerge or improve. I think BLP1E is primarily concerned about if we should have an article about the event or the person behind the event. So the main conclusion we can draw here is that there should be an article about the murders. And therefore we should vote merge to that article. If there is not one, the answer is to edit this article into an event article. ie. improve, rather than delete.
    Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event carefully if you doubt my analysis please. CT55555 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A deletion discussion should not have an outcome of "improve". If the article can be improved, you should improve it yourself. And we cannot merge it to an article that does not exist. These are separate topics, this one clearly violates BLP1E. A deletion of this article does not prevent someone from creating an article about the event, it stops them from creating them about the person, which is inline with Wikipedia policy. ––FormalDude talk 12:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't "violate" BLP1E, BLP1E just says it would be better to have an article about the event. Article improvement is a great outcome of AfD. If you are unwilling to make any improvements and somehow think only others should be compelled to do that, then that is your choice, but the AfD trows urgency into the mix and forces action on your timeline. Suggest you withdraw the AfD and drafity and then I actually will work on it without the rush. CT55555 (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Article improvement is often a good result of AfD, but it should never be an outcome that the AfD is closed as. At this point, another editor has already commented on the merits of a potential event article, so I'm not comfortable withdrawing it. ––FormalDude talk 13:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As you wish. Just for clarity, I support drafity as a better outcome than deletion and volunteer to make changes. Maybe I'll get to this before AfD closes, maybe not. CT55555 (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my comment below, I favor deletion because in addition to WP:BLP1E, based on my research, it does not appear that an article about the event can be supported at this time, per the WP:EVENT guideline, which is designed to help evaluate topics per the WP:NOTNEWS policy. For example, I have not found WP:INDEPTH coverage in reliable sources, only listicles of similar events generally, and I have not found indications of WP:LASTING effects or a demonstrable long-term impact since the initial burst of 2014/2015 news published during or immediately after the event. The apparent lack of sufficient WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to support the development of an event article also seems to weigh against draftifying the article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We aren't here to force someone to improve the article, only stating why it should or should not be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If I thought the article could be improved (according to our policies and guidelines), my !vote would be different. Beccaynr (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, e.g. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. Coverage does not appear to be WP:SUSTAINED, and there appear to be no WP:LASTING effects from the event, international coverage is not a sufficent basis on its own to support notability, particularly without a demonstrable long-term impact, WP:INDEPTH coverage does not appear to be available, because Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally, and per the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE guideline, Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article, so there also does not appear to be sufficient support for an WP:EVENT article. Beccaynr (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Do not delete Megan Huntsman as the article is better put together than other existing articles about serial killers and her case is notable and infamous with a YouTube video about her having 1.3 million views.--Shktriib1 (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shktriib1: It doesn't matter how well put together it is if it violates Wikipedia's notability policy. ––FormalDude talk 12:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what about her case being infamous with a YouTube video about her having 1.3 million views doesn’t that count as notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shktriib1 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fame may be considered, but according to our policies and guidelines, we also need sources to help us develop an encyclopedic article. According to the notability guideline, Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines. The guidelines are explained on that page, which also references the What Wikipedia is not policy. For this article, the WP:NOTNEWS policy appears to favor deletion of the article, because according to the WP:BLP1E policy (which applies to people notable only for one event) and the WP:EVENT guideline, there does not appear to be enough coverage in independent and reliable sources to write an encyclopedia article about the person or the event. Beccaynr (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep better need of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read the above discussion? Better sources do not exist. ––FormalDude talk 12:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I find Global News, the Independent, an NPR report. Lots of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of which overcome WP:BLP1E. ––FormalDude talk 13:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have plenty of sources, it even passes WP:GNG, tons of media coverage as a serial killer. More than notable here. Reliable sources, sustained coverage in multiple languages (English, Spanish, Norwegian, French). We have articles on other serial killers, how is this one different? A series of sustained events over the course of a decade, coverage in multiple language sources. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also mentioned in books and peer-reviewed journals. We've kept articles with less sourcing, this is almost a slam-dunk notability case. "Sustained coverage" being the idea here. She's cited as a "case study" in this scholarly work: [1]. That's more than WP:BLP1E, you're well into an academic review of her life. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She's also got four feature articles in the New York Times, I'm not sure how much more sourcing you need? Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "case study" mentioned above is presented as a prompt for discussion along with 3 other cases, without context or analysis about Huntsman or the event, and all of the information is cited to a 2014 HuffPost article [2]. On GBooks, there is Serial Murderers and their Victims, also citing her as a case study at p. 309, telling the reader to "Google this case" and then asking a series of questions, not offering analysis. This type of superficial coverage appears to be insufficient per WP:NOTNEWS, including as discussed in greater detail in the WP:BLP1E policy as well as the WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EVENT guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Four feature articles in the NYT and sustained media coverage over 10 yrs in at least 4 different languages, are notable. ~~ Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Over ten years? I'm not seeing any reliable significant sources that aren't from 2014 or 2015. That's two years, and it's strictly in the context of one single event. And I'm not seeing any sources at all that are from before 2014, which is eight years. ––FormalDude talk 21:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oaktree b, if you could link to the four feature articles in the NYT and sustained media coverage over ten years, that would be appreciated. I would like to review the sources according to our policies and guidelines. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=%22Megan%2BHuntsman%22, sorry, three. I'm not analyzing each and every source, I'm not this invested. Leaning withdraw my vote this point. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SNOW, wp:don'tcarethatmuch Oaktree b (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I already voted above) Google books searches shows the following from 2015 to 2021:

  1. 9 sentences (half a page) in: Hall, S., Hall, S. (2020). The World Encyclopedia of Serial Killers: Volume Two, E–L. United States: WildBlue Press.
  2. 11 sentences here: Women in the Criminal Justice System: Tracking the Journey of Females and Crime. (2015). United States: Taylor & Francis.
  3. Preview isn't clear, at least some senteces here: Sabharwal, S., Sabharwal, S. (2021). Spiritual Genocide: The Reincarnation of Earth. United Kingdom: Page Publishing, Incorporated.
  4. 4 sentences here: Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate. (2018). United States: American Psychiatric Association Publishing.
  5. 8 sentences here (in Indonesian) Perempuan & Ibu. (2021). (n.p.): Hasfa .

There are very many more books about serial killers that talk about her and her crime. Also I want to improve upon what I said above. This is not one event. She is famous for killing six children, so that's at least six events, not counting the court events. CT55555 (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the purposes of WP:BLP1E, the serial killing is one event, because six event articles would not be created instead of a BLP, if sufficient sources are available to support an article per the WP:EVENT guideline.
  • For The World Encyclopedia of Serial Killers, WildBlue Press appears to be a Vanity press, e.g. from their submission page: "We charge authors NOTHING upfront." (and SFWA describes fee-charging as an "abusive practice" by publishers). The brief overview at what appears to be p. 213, per WP:BLP1E, covers Huntman 1. in the context of the serial killing event, her pleading guilty after the discovery, and her subsequent prison sentence; provides no indication that 2. she previously was not low-profile or is unlikely to continue to remain low-profile; and does not indicate 3. the event is significant, or that Huntsman's role was substantial or well-documented. Four of the sentences focus on her estranged husband.
  • I had skipped over Women in the Criminal Justice System: Tracking the Journey of Females and Crime because I recognized the citation in the case study at p. 202 as the same 2014 HuffPost article noted above in this case study without context, which is the full chapter in the book, cited as Dodson, K. D., and L. N. Cabage. (2015). Mothers who kill. In T. L. Freiburger and Catherin D. Marcum (Eds.), Women in the criminal justice system: Tracking the journey of females and crime. pp. 189-208. The overview similarly does not demonstrate how this is not WP:BLP1E.
  • Spiritual Genocide: The Reincarnation of Earth is published by a pay-to-print publisher, and promotes itself e.g. "Every chapter is like a photograph in God's album surveying the past, present, and the possible future of this unremitting heavenly war and its everlasting effect on Earth and her population."
  • Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate at pp. 55-56 seems to be more of a passing mention as one of two cases that "recently made international news" and compares her as similar to another case explored in greater depth, noting Huntsman also had living children. It also cites a study estimating the rate of neonaticide. This mention does not appear to help avoid WP:BLP1E.
From my view, if she had not pleaded guilty, there would have been a trial and there likely would have been a lot more coverage that could have demonstrated this is not WP:BLP1E or that an WP:EVENT article could be supported. A trial and the resulting coverage and analysis could have demonstrated a substantial or well-documented role, and/or the significance of the event, in the media, culture, or psychological/criminological literature, along with in-depth discussion. Due to how low-profile she appears to have remained, we do not have a lot of in-depth information about her or the event, and it does not appear possible to write an encyclopedia article according to our policies and guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really struggle with the idea that 6 murders on separate dates are "one event". If six people were killed on the same day, then I'd see it differently, but this was a series of murders that took place over years.
I'm sure she would like to be low profile, but I don't think that serial killers are considered low profile. It's difficult to say this and sound neutral and not sound cruel, but killing people I think is an activity that tends to attract attention, is a high profile type of activity.
I took a read of WP:SELFPUB and it is clear about not using self published sources in the context of BLP, so fair point. I see WP:HUFFPO is considered a good and a bad source depending if it is written by a contributor or staff, do you know which is is, is that why you think that's a problem? I always considered people following up on news a sign of notability.
Either way, I think our different view here hinges on if we consider six separate murders to be one event or six, and I just can't accept the argument that six separate murders is one event or that convinced murderers have taken part in only low profile activities. CT55555 (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At AfD, when I try to use sources to show that a subject is not WP:BLP1E because of more than one event, I point to coverage at different points in time for different things. Based on the sources, she is only covered after being discovered as a serial killer, admitting to the crimes when questioned by police, pleading guilty, and being sentenced to prison. There does not appear to be a separate 'event' from this per the sources, nor any indication she previously was or has since been anything but low-profile. That she was high-profile for this one event is not enough to clear WP:BLP1E and support a BLP.
Given that this appears to be WP:BLP1E, the question becomes whether we can avoid deletion per WP:NOTNEWS by finding sources to support an event article with assistance from the WP:EVENT guideline. It does not appear possible due to the lack of support in the sources for the kind of depth etc, discussed in my comments above about the guideline.
Also, I did not look closely at the 2014 HuffPost "Megan Huntsman arrested after 7 dead babies found in Utah garage" article (which appears to no longer be working) because it seems to be part of the same burst of news, similar to the other contemporaneous sources (the NYT coverage noted by Oaktree b above is also from circa 2014). I do not think per WP:BLP1E nor the WP:EVENT guideline that a 2015 source summarizing a news article as a case study without any in-depth discussion is sufficient support for an encyclopedia article. Beccaynr (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think she is notable for murdering six times, not just for being arrested afterwards.
Aside from the one/six events point, dismissing on the basis of BLP1E would also require us to imagine that a serial killer is a low profile person and likely to remain so...in the context the general public generally tending to be interested in serial killers, there being books about serial killers, me having mentioned some above (acknowledging some were self published and should be discounted.)
I understand that most coverage happened at the time. But not all did. And six murders is six events to me, therefore making any policy about "one event" irrelevant. I don't think we're going to reach consensus here, so I'll respectfully switch back into watching mode. All the best to you. CT55555 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E would require one of those six murders to be individually notable, but none of them are because they were never known until the arrest, and we still don't even know when or how exactly they occurred. The only notable event is her being arrested for killing children. It's not comparable to the notability of a serial killer as the victims of serial killers are usually publicized overtime (albeit as individual murders), whereas in this case nobody was even reported missing because nobody was known to have died. ––FormalDude talk 02:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So she's notable then for the mass of killings lumped together and the sustained coverage in several books as noted, in several languages, as noted, and being used as a case study for discussion in a classroom setting. Even the volume of talk about the case here shows me it's more than a trivial, one-time event. Ok she's not the Ted Bundy-type killer that will get movies made about her, but she's talked about more than your average-Joe serial killer that does the stuff then gets put away and never spoken about again. We have multiple discussions in different types of media, it passes BASIC and GNG in my eyes. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two brief mentions in RS books refer to the news coverage, with one book published in 2015 summarizing one 2014 article to form a "case study" (not an actual case study) for discussion (without actual discussion), shortly after the event, and the other referring to "recently made international news" and in a brief mention finding her noteworthy only for having also had living children.
There are also WP:BLP issues to consider, given the limited information available, and how reliant the burst of tabloid-style news coverage is on allegations made by other people. I have also checked the WP Library and found more tabloid coverage and similarly-styled churnalism with limited encyclopedic information that appears to conclude with her incarceration.
There appears to be no sustained in-depth coverage beyond repeated gossip and allegations because there was no trial, and no forensic examination that ever became public that could be subject to analysis. Instead of vaguely waving at "books" that so far have included obviously non-RS sources, it would be appreciated if sources that support notability per our policies and guidelines could be identified. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we should imagine anything, but instead should review the sources and whether they are sufficient to support a BLP or event article pursuant to our policies and guidelines. This particular serial killer does not appear to have support in the sources or P&Gs for an article - per the low-profile explanatory essay linked to WP:BLP1E, e.g. she has not been self-promotional, has not been a featured performer or speaker at publicly-advertised events or produced publications, she has not sought or held a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority, and she is not engaged in high-profile activity. That there are books generally about serial killers is not sufficient per the WP:EVENT guideline or WP:BLP1E to help this subject overcome deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. Beccaynr (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable, clearly meets WP:GNG and clearly does not violate BLP1E. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also seems to satisfy WP:CRIME, number 2. I find no less than 4 podcasts/youtube videos that talk about her, in French and in English, all made in 2020 or 2021. These aren't super reliable sources, but it shows sustained coverage to pretty much the present time. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRIME, for perpetrators #2 states The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. This is not supported by sources that lack reliability or brief mentions in RS that lack WP:SECONDARY context or commentary. If anyone finds sources that may help support notability per our guidelines and policies, please link to them in this discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She's been cited as a case study in books published by the American Psychiatric Association as explained above [3] This was in 2018. This is used to teach students, a reliable secondary source which devotes attention to her role in a discussion about neonaticide. This was in 2018, a decade after the last death. An entire generation of students will have studied her in this context. Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This in addition to the two case studies above, well over a decade after the event. She's used to explain the pathology of mothers who kill their children, it's not substantial simply because she plead guilty and was quickly taken away. We have the fact that it's even being mentioned over a decade later. "Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role". The key word is "generally" and not "always". She more than meets the first part of WP:CRIME, 2. These aren't self-published vanity press type things, these are textbooks, used to educate future psychological professionals. Most would not have even heard of this lady by the time they reach college in 2018, showing sustained coverage for well over 10 yrs. Oaktree b (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She's also cited, again as a case example, in this PhD dissertation from 2022 [4] This shows ongoing interest in her case and in the events, largely in academic circles. This student was a young person when the murders happened yet she's fully aware of them and mentions them two decades later. Clearly the case has interest in academic circles, especially among young people. Oaktree b (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A 2022 PhD dissertation from Alliant International University that mentions the case after the 2014/2015 burst of news following the discovery of the bodies but is focused on "Examining Psychotherapist’s Experience with Filicidal Parents: A Qualitative Study on the Therapist’s Personal Experience of Therapy, the Working Alliance, and Countertransference" is not significant attention to her role, and I question whether this is a sufficiently reliable source for the purpose of supporting notability. Do you have a page number for where she is mentioned? I have not been able to find it. Beccaynr (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is she or her case used in reliable sources to explain the pathology of mothers who kill their children? Criminology has a variety of ways to analyze people and their behavior, usually by devoting significant attention to the individual's role - is there any indication of WP:SECONDARY coverage, as opposed to brief summaries of 2014/2015 news coverage following the discovery of the bodies? Due to the lack of substantial coverage, all we could do with these sources is indicate she is mentioned.
    There are also constitutional criminal procedure issues that secondary sources could have commented on, but did not, and an appearance of significance and seeming interesting is not enough to support an article. Per WP:N, it is not enough to assert WP:GNG if this article should be excluded by WP:NOT and the related policy of WP:BLP1E. Beccaynr (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She was briefly mentioned, but not as a case study, in the 2018 book published by the APA, as explained in comments above - it is brief attention to her in a discussion about neonaticide (which makes sense, considering how little reliable information is available about her), and identifies her as one of two examples of serial neonaticides that "recently made international news". The four sentences that directly talk about her and her case are cited to a 2015 LA Times article about the sentence she received after the bodies were discovered in 2014. Per WP:CRIME, this is not significant attention to her role, and does not support the historic significance of the crime. Beccaynr (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's gained academic significance, the young woman is risking her livelyhood by including Megan's crimes in her PhD dissertation. The fact that she's discussed at all in academic circles largely negates the historical significance of her event, she's used in an educational context to train people, which is a higher standard. She's become part of the historical canon of these types of events to help contextualize the crime and psychology involved. Oaktree b (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize our comments are overlapping a bit, but do you have a page number for the Alliant International University PhD dissertation mention of Huntsman? I would like to better understand why including Huntsman in a PhD dissertation is a risk to a livelihood, when two RS feel comfortable summarizing one news article during the 2014/2015 burst of news that followed the discovery of the bodies. It is also not clear to me why you assume the PhD writer is young. Also, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. I think care is warranted for a dissertation from Alliant International University that is a qualitative study of the therapist's experience if there is no indication that Huntsman was a subject of the therapist. Beccaynr (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was implying that she needs to "pass" by having this dissertation accepted or she doesn't get awarded the PhD. She's not (from what I can tell) treated Hunstman, but considered her important enough to be studied. Oaktree b (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm only able to get a limited view of the dissertation. The killer's name comes up in a snippet view and doesn't appear in the version of the paper I've downloaded (it's in the pages that aren't included in the preview). Oaktree b (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The dissertation abstract concludes by stating "A phenomenological approach of investigation is utilized to investigate the experiences therapists working with parents who have murdered of their child(ren)." Based on the table of contents, it seems reasonable to speculate that a mention of Huntsman may occur at p. 17, Repeated Neonaticide. Based on the overall focus of the dissertation, and how other examples are presented in the introduction/literature review, it seems much more difficult to presume that this is an in-depth analysis of Huntsman. This dissertation is primarily a study of therapists, labelled "Participant One", Participant Two", etc., working with clients labelled "A", "B", "C", etc. Beccaynr (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this not a violation of BLP1E? She's a low profile individual with no significant lasting coverage. ––FormalDude talk 21:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Her case has been used, no less than 4 times, in the broader discussion of the pathology or though process of infanticides, for a decade at least, in individuals that would have little to no knowledge of the events at the time they happened. Sustained, academic interest is more than enough for BLP1E. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There also have not been a large amount of crimes that match what she did, so the pool of things from which to choose sources is rather small. The fact that she's mentioned at all, from a group of less than 10 such events, in scholarly circles and in teaching material over a decade and a half later shows the importance they attach to her crimes. Oaktree b (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A group of less than 10 such events? The data presented by the RS generally does not seem to support this, and it is unclear what source you are referring to for this claim. Beccaynr (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was discussed in one of the books with the case studies, involving either patricide or fratricide with multiple children. I can't recall exactly where it was. They seem to break down the crimes based on the killer's reason for doing the crime (compassion vs the need to eliminate the threat of a child etc) and honestly it was getting too far down the rabbit hole for me to pay that much attention to it. My point was a general observation rather that citing a specific source. Oaktree b (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial Murderers and their Victims discusses the rarity of female rampage/spree serial killers at p. 308 and then states that women killers are much more likely to be "quiet" and "low visibility". It moves on to a boxed profile of Huntsman, noting "as of this writing, insanity was not being considered as a plea in this case, although mental health issues may well have been a factor" before asking the reader to Google the case and asking questions about her motive. The book also discusses "black widow" killers at p. 312, defining them as "women who kill their husbands, children, or other relatives" and states "Elderly men and women, and especially babies, became their targets" and then refers to Chapter 6 in the book (where Huntsman does not appear to be mentioned). The book also notes the lack of research into female serial killers and says "the public displays more amusement than concern" about various cases, particularly compared to various male serial killers.
    The PhD dissertation from Alliant International University includes a summary overview of known motivations with brief examples, and I was asking for a page number because I did not see Hunstman described, and based on how little appears to be known about her and what happened, I would be somewhat surprised to see her classified because there appears to be little more than sensationalism and speculation about her motives.
    The chapter from Women in the Criminal Justice System: Tracking the Journey of Females and Crime discusses, e.g. Resnick's, Scott's, d’Orban's, Baker's and Meyer and Oberman's typologies for filicide, and concludes with four boxed summaries of cases (labeled "case study" although I object to the use of this term for our purposes, because of how it may sound like an in-depth analysis when it is not) that summarizes one news 2014 article about Huntsman after her arrest. The preceding questions includes one that asks the reader to "Pick one of the following cases: Marybeth Tinning, Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, and Casey Anthony." None of the questions reference the boxed "case studies". Huntsman unfortunately appears to be treated essentially as a footnote.
    The 2018 book by the APA states at p. 55, "A young woman who has just delivered is far and away the most common perpetrator of neonaticide", that the mother "almost always acts alone", usually concealed the pregnancy, and that recent studies indicate neonaticide occurs when the birth is not the result of a first pregnancy. The book then moves on to generally note cases of serial neonaticide occasionally "appear in the media" and then describes a recent case in somewhat detailed paragraph, and then Huntsman in four sentences - the section then concludes, without WP:SECONDARY commentary, analysis, or further discussion applying the preceding concepts to Huntsman.
    I questioned your characterization because based on my review of sources, I have not seen indications of an in-depth review of Huntsman or indications of historic significance related to her crimes. Beccaynr (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't asking you. You said you didn't care. ––FormalDude talk 03:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care, but I'm helping move the discussion forward. I guess we all have an axe to grind after all. Oaktree b (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm analyzing my sources, not ones people tell me to analyze. That's not how this discussion works. Feel free to agree or disagree, don't tell others what to do. At the end of the day, I won't lose sleep if this gets deleted/don't particularly care about it, but still can help others who do make decisions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my axe I'm grinding. I'm searching for what I think are sources, if they get shot down, I try again. I enjoy the search to be honest, more than the result. The journey, not the destination. Oaktree b (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You've made over 20 comments to this discussion, and are interrupting my attempt to address another editor. Stop the bludgeoning. ––FormalDude talk 04:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ok Oaktree b (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @FormalDude: Oaktree b is perfectly entitled to respond to you. May I suggest you dial back on the rudeness. Given you have responded copiously to any editor who has not voted delete, I don't actually think the "bludgeoning" is down to Oaktree b! If she fails BLP1E then pretty much any murderer would fail BLP1E. How many are known for anything other than murdering somebody? In this case, she is a serial killer, used as a case study in reliable sources and her case is highly unusual. No, not BLP1E at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, this is why I've been hesitant to contribute. I've been trying to keep my points to policy arguments or source discussion. I'm not sure we're at a place of agreement on quality sources found yet. Oaktree b (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Other murderers would not fail WP:BLP1E if e.g. per #3, the event was significant or the individual's role was either [...] substantial or [...] well documented. John Hinckley Jr. is noted as an example because the event was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. As discussed in detail in comments above, Huntsman is not used as a case study and her case is not highly unusual per the few reliable sources that mention her and her case after the initial burst of sensationalist news coverage.
    Other murderers also might not fail WP:BLP1E if they had, per #2, not been or did not appear to other remain a low-profile individual, and this has also been discussed in detail in comments above as applied to Huntsman. There also has been no indication, per #1, that Huntsman has been covered by reliable sources beyond the context of a single event.
    Our policies and guidelines, including WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, WP:CRIME, WP:EVENT and WP:NOT appear to converge with the same general purpose and guidance to find better and more in-depth sourcing than has been found in this discussion to support an article. I have been mentioning but I think it may be worthwhile to emphasize the WP:BLP aspect of this, because the lack of in-depth WP:SECONDARY coverage of Huntsman appears to leave us with little more than sensationalism about her, which is contrary to policy. Beccaynr (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fellow volunteers, it seems like you are not going to persuade each other. Please consider if there is advantages to discuss further, noting that someone will need to read all of this to close it and so much text might put off others from contributing, which would be a shame, new perspectives here might be helpful. CT55555 (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be helpful if anyone could provide reliable secondary coverage that demonstrates this article should not be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. So far, this does not appear to have happened, despite multiple requests. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policies and guidelines (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. [...] Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. Beccaynr (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than the extended, but brief, scholarly review of her case (the thesis and the three case studies/mentions), I find none. I'm not sure any can be found at this point; the article will likely be deleted in that case. Oaktree b (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more input from other people. I think you've all said what you need to say for now, so let others take a look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:47, 28 June 2022 (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/Megan_Huntsman&oldid=1105293013"