Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Jessen

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 of the debate was keep. Ifnord 17:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna_Jessen[edit]

Delete Non-notable biography CSD A7, not verififiable, the sources are circular and none provide any actual documentation (including video, documment scans, photos) to support the claimsWikipedia:Verifiability, vanity page Wikipedia:Vanity_page, WP:BIO#People_still_alive, point of view is dedicated to making a political argument, not simply providing a biography Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halliburton Shill (talk • contribs)

Keep obviously notable prolife activist, testified before the United States Congress twice. 19000 Google hits for the name, I went up to page 43 and all seem to be relevant to this Gianna Jessen. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable based on above. It's an unusual enough name that it's a fairly safe bet those ghits belong to her. Fan1967 07:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've never heard of her before, but judging by the above, she's notable enough. JIP | Talk 08:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, notable, but only linked to within Wikipedia by a few anti-abortion users/discussions. Please note that was my main reason for speedy deletion. Of more concern are the lack of sources and lack of NPOV.--Halliburton Shill 08:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, though suckiness of article noted. ProhibitOnions 11:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be both verifiable and reasonably notable. --kingboyk 12:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sarah. Monicasdude 13:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and slap a POV tag on it if necessary. POV problems are minor, and the article appears sufficiently sourced. A biography of a person with a POV does not constitute a prohibited promotion of that POV, either. Powers 14:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and of interest. Dwain 16:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this biography of a notable personality. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not really WP:V per se. I've tagged it because right now I see 2 sources that all are based on her personal account of events. There are vague claims of witnesses and paperwork in the BBC article, but that isn't adequate sourcing. I found no independent verification of the claims. I've no strong feelings about inclusion or deletion of this article, but it needs to be sourced, tagged, or edited.--Isotope23 18:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was aborted and I did not die. There are many interviews and independent accounts, etc. and no dispute over her story. patsw 19:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are independent accounts then perhaps you could link them on the article talk page? I'll remove the tag if I see WP:V evidence other than Ms. Jessen's personal account.--Isotope23 19:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you looking for her doctor's report? Dwain 23:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually looking for anything that isn't based on her own version of events. Don't get me wrong... I believe she is telling the truth, but un-corroborated personal accounts are not very encyclopedic material.--Isotope23 03:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This story UK Telegraph is full of names, places, and dates which even if the Telegraph didn't fact check, the pro-aborts would have in order to discredit her story, her interviews, and her Congressional testimony were it false.

I also want to make the point that while I provided this reference, I was under no obligation to do so. We assume good faith and the recourse to using external sources is a step taken after a dispute over the material is documented. For people who are well-informed on the debate over abortion, Jessen is well-known. For people who would passively rely upon the mainstream media to bring the stories of Jessen and other survivors of abortion to their attention, she and others like her will be maintained plausibly non-notable by pretending they do not exist. This is one way the abortion debate is being controlled. patsw 15:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are under no obligation, but you certainly help your cause by doing some due dilligence... especially since it is a good assumption that the average person is not well-informed when it comes to the minutae of abortion debate. Let me read the article and I'll remove the tag and add it as a source if it has all the info you say it does.--Isotope23 22:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The subject is notable and interesting. The nominator nominated this article for deletion after I used Gianna Jessen's existence as an argument against a wording that he was arguing for at the abortion article "removal of the embryo or fetus before it is capable of sustaining life". A strange response. AnnH ♫ 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though her story is interestign it doesn't make it notable. i have an interesting story, may I have my own article? . Newyorktimescrossword 07:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you meant Keep then Newyorktimescrossword?--Isotope23 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I'm going against the overwhelming majority here, but delete. There is not a single claim to notability in the article. She testified before Congress: big deal, probably hundreds of people testify before Congress every year, that doesn't make them notable. She ran a marathon despite having cerebral palsy: well, good for her, but hardly sufficient to establish her notability. She's gotten press coverage: same as with testifying before Congress, lots of nonnotable people get an article about themselves in the newspaper or on BBC. Angr/talk 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She appears to be a notable ~~sideshow freak~~ political activist. Brian G. Crawford 21:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, person is a political activist of note. Suggest removing as per WP:SNOW. Yamaguchi先生 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Yes, she is notable, no doubt. Jesus should protect her article from partial-keep-deletion (it's an awful procedure!) the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 03:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-verifiable story; Telegraph article has no other names or references than referent. Vanity page to promote political agenda and public speaking career. Not notable and not neutral POV. CSHolocene 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That was CSHolocene's first edit. A strange page to stumble upon just after registering. AnnH ♫ 20:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Someone who survives an abortion is notable and has a unique point of view. Suggest that it be kept as POV —This unsigned comment was added by 199.46.199.232 (talk • contribs) .

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.