Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gypsy-Rose Blanchard

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. In the sense that there is disagreement about whether to keep the article (the majority's view) or to merge it with the case about the murder committed by the subject. But nobody supports deletion, and therefore, should people want to continue this discussion, the proper place to do so would be a merger proposal on the article talk page. Sandstein 13:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy-Rose Blanchard[edit]

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

Gypsy-Rose Blanchard (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)

Gypsy may one day be notable for something other than killing her mother. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and nothing in this article suggests any current independent notability; most of it is content that reiterates what's already covered in the article about her mother's murder. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • WAIT - This article has more detail regarding the life of Gypsy Rose Blanchard and the actions that lead up to the murder of her mother. I would wait a year before considering deleting the article. If no more notable information comes forward, now that she has been released, then merge the articles. DandEs (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially WP:CRYSTAL. It can always be recreated. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I feel this article should be kept because of the future of Gypsy since being released and the doccumentry series that has just been released about her life.
People would be looking her name up rather than her mum's or the guy she met online that killed her mum. I feel shes more notable than anyone else in this case. 93ben (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is notable for something already; according to the documentary she has had made about her she is the only known case of Munchausen by proxy victim who committed murder to get away from her abuser. I think that in and of itself makes her worth having at least a modest article written about her. Lisenka92 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but Wikipedians are not stupid. Remember when people tried to redirect COVID-19 when it first came about even though we knew it was going global? I think the sources and interest show Gypsy Rose has made a name in her own right, and I guarantee she will have appearances on Dancing with the Stars and Celebrity Big Brother under her belt come next year. Why redirect?Manipulative Maniac (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [blocked sock--indeed, Wikipedians are not stupid. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)][reply]

  • See above. This is even more CRYSTAL.

    I also find it interesting that an account that has been around for less than a month "remembers" events here from four years ago ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Daniel Case, I don't have an explanation for that: their CU-confirmed socks go back to December of last year, if I remember correctly. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect She's only notable for the murder, so it should redirect there unless and until she has a substantial career that is not directly linked to her having killed her mother. Just because she may eventually become more notable doesn't mean she needs an article now. EasyAsPai (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gypsy is notable as a high-profile victim of factitious disorder (Munchhausen-by-proxy). Her mother's abuse and the subsequent failure of the medical profession to detect it for so many years would make her notable even if she had not facilitated her mother's murder. Elinde7994 (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, yes, within the context of a notable event. It does not necessarily follow from that that she is notable enough for a separate article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's a notable public figure engaged in activism, and whether the notability is due to her mother's murder or not is irrelevant. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BIO1E it is very relevant. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while I'm not oppsed to keeping the page, a merger is probably the more realistic outcome. Looking through the murder article though, it seems most of Gypsys life is being told trough the biography of her mother, so I would prefer to see some kind of rewrite that separates the two a bit more, splitting the background section in two and incorporating parts of this article into it. Right now a simple redirect won't fix any of the issues with the main article. --jonas (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is exploding in the news and our readers deserve an article for a noteworthy, notorious, and famous person Caniteurbana (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSINTHENEWS. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard as per WP:BIO1E. Only known for the murder of her mother so obviously makes sense to redirect there. –Davey2010Talk 16:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BIO1E, allow separate articles about the same subject if the individual in questions becomes notable enough. “ However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.” - WP:BIO1E
    you and many others arguing redirect, have failed mention and show how she does not qualify for this exception. BigRed606 (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Often people in high profile cases become media personalities upon release, it looks like she's going to become popular in her own right. ManicD101 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CRYSTAL. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the claims of the other users who voted keep. On @ManicD101:'s part, he might right. What happens next will be up to her. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CRYSTAL. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has become very notable over the last couple years. There have been many tv shows and documentaries on her, as mentioned above. She definitely meets the threshold of notability for a stand alone article. BigRed606 (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You confuse "TV shows about her" with "TV shows about the circumstances that led her to kill her mother". Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This Article clearly reaches the criteria mentioned under WP:BIO1E, which states “ However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.”- WP:BIO1E. Based on the fact she has generated enough publicity for there to be multiple tv shows, about her life before during and after the murders, along with other major news sites talking about her recently, CNN, ABC, USA, Today ect… their seems to be enough notability to meet the criteria mentioned above per WP:BIO1E. BigRed606 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others SDVBou (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC. Like it or not, she is notable due to all the coverage of her life. – Meena • 18:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. No, not an important figure, and a redirect to the other article is more than enough. We should not be acting on the whims of the boulevard press. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per others above. She has become notable over the years and was the subject of an entire television series. Now, she's all over the news and mainstream media in ways that aren't about the murder (an article which some suggest we should merge this too), see here, here, here, and here. She's become a celebrity.. even has 9.3 million followers on TikTok, which is a lot more than most other TikTokers who have articles on Wikipedia. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is basically WP:ITSINTHENEWS. And one's Tik Tok follower count is not, and never should be, a determinant of notability for a standalone article. We have deleted articles about far too many YouTubers and Twitchers whose followers created accounts to vainly make that argument for there to be any dispute about this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying her TikTok following determins her notability, I was using that as an example of her celebrity and growing presence as an internet personality especially seeing as there are now social media trends that she is the focus of. This is more than just being in the news. She's been on talk shows and given exclusive interviews for major magazines. She wrote a book, was the focus of a television movie, was the focus of a documentary, and was the main character in a television series. She's reached a certain level of famous for being famous for the criminal background.. I would argue it's very similar to Anna Sorokin. I mean, Slate even went so far as to call her America's Sweetheart. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for many reasons listed above, but a parallel case to this includes the page for the Menéndez Brothers [4]. As with Gypsy Rose Blanchcard, the Menéndez Brothers are primarily known for murdering their parents, but there is strong evidence of childhood abuse. In any case, the term "Menénsez Brothers" is more well known to the general public than that of their parents. See also Amy Fisher [5] and Pam Hupp [6]. This may not be what we wish for, but these individuals have gotten a celebrity status based on their crimes, and it can happen very quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJPyatt (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Menendez Brothers had one trial that became almost a soap opera (and had one of the best real-life Perry Mason moments ever, even if it didn't result in a conviction) and a second after the first one ended in a partial mistrial. Amy Fisher was the subject of three made-for-TV movies and didn't kill the woman she shot. Pam Hupp's husband got convicted of a murder many people now think she committed, but which remains officially unsolved after he was acquitted at a second trial granted following evidence of severe prosecutorial misconduct. Hupp herself has been convicted of one murder; people also think she might have killed her own mother as well. There's a complex story there, as for the others.
    Gypsy Rose? She killed her horribly abusive mother, pled guilty to second-degree murder and got a ten-year sentence, which ended with time off for good behavior a couple of weeks ago. She is hardly out of the shadow of the event which made her notable (and no, we cannot say "she pretended to be disabled and sick" before that when we all know her mother put her up to that, and if she hadn't she would never have killed her mother).
    I do not argue, as some seem to be implying, that she will never be notable by herself. I fully expect her to do something like appear on Dancing With the Stars or Celebrity Big Brother or something like that soon, maybe even run for political office. When that happens I won't argue she isn't independently notable. But not now. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, literally just saw on the news an interview where she is coming out with another book. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's quite a few participants created 15+ years ago who have minimal edits. Is there canvassing somewhere (other than delsorts)? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had the same thought, but don't have solid evidence. Especially given the huge number of Keep votes that are completely against policy, or don't give a rationale at all. I would encourage the closing administrator to carefully review the strength of the arguments, as this is WP:NOTAVOTE. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) agree, I have never seen so many dormant or semi-dormant accounts come out of the woodwork. I counted 7 I would put in those categories, including one that was dormant for 15 years and another for 4 years, plus the rest for multiple months. (I listed them in my original comment but got edit-conflicted, and can't be bothered re-listing.) The prima facie majority above is surely not an accurate reflection of true consensus as a result of this, on top of any potential weaknesses in arguments. Daniel (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt, that canvassing is at play here. Instead i believe the recent rise in her notability is the main reason we are seeing people who typically don’t edit on regular basis comment their support for “keep” in the debate page. BigRed606 (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While numerically, the editors (not all of whom have low edit counts) arguing to Keep this article have not presented many strong, policy-based arguments, there is no support for deletion so this is a decision between Keep and Merge/Redirect. But I'm also skeptical of the argument that this violates WP:BIO1E as most of the article is about her life with her mother and some on her post-prison life, only a portion is about the murder which I assume is the "event" considered. I see her on so many magazine covers that I don't think she will return to being a "low profile" person that is one of the WP:BLP1E conditions if we are looking at that policy. Also, even though "other things exist" is a popular essay (not policy), interpreted WP:BIO1E in this way would result in the deletion of articles on any person primarily known for either committing a crime or being a victim of a crime and we have hundreds of those articles (perhaps thousands). Also, I don't see any critique of the sourcing of this article which I assume is satisfactory. Let me state, I'm neutral here but I'd like to see more policy-guided arguments on what to do with this article, I'm wondering if there is anything more on the Redirect/Merge side than WP:BIO1E and how those advocating Keep would address this criticism.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The Redirect/Merge side have offered nothing but a blanket response using Wikipedia’s WP:BIO1E as their standard for their argument, but have failed mention specifically how this article does not meet the expectation, for a stand alone article under a section of the WP:BIO1E, which states “ However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.”- WP:BIO1E. Judging by her recent rise in notability concerning not just her role in the murder, but her whole life in her totality before and after the murder. We will see that if we take this exception mentioned above into account, that this article does indeed in fact meet the criteria for a stand alone article. BigRed606 (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For me the key phrase in BIO1E is "If the event is highly significant ..." Is a murder nine years ago really so significant yet? Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The murder from 9 years ago is not the main reason for her notability, it’s her recent release along with increasing media attention caused by the increasing number TV shows and articles about her life, of that is causing her to become notable. Hence why she should absolutely be considered for a stand alone article using the exception in Wikipedia BIO1E mentioned above. BigRed606 (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would she have been released from prison if she had never committed the murder? Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, what is there to say that can't be said on the article about the murder? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard. The tipping point for me is that there is almost complete duplication of the information, so why have two articles with so much overlap? Clarityfiend (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Gypsy Rose Blanchard, per other's points, has sort of outgrown her murder in terms of notability. At this point she is a notable influencer, even if it's upheld by a single event. Her life and the psychology behind her is also significantly documented and studied, and has most likely outgrown the murder article. --Wikiwillz (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Due to the rise of her popularity following her release, and her rise in social media numbers, she has essentially become a social media influencer that rivals many top members in the industry today, on top of the other contributions to keep the article as well (new book, interest in her specifically and not the murder, etc.). As well, we now have an article about her that can be added to depending on her life choices from this point onward. She has become a celebrity. Kbeast33 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Her story is encyclopedic and she's amassed a large social following. She's been featured either in person or in character in a number of documentaries, biopics, and interviews. Especially since her prison release, she's been pervasive in media and culture. Dmarquard (talk)
  • Keep: She has become a quite notable public figure over the last couple years and will likely do so in any future. Also, there are likely more media-coverage in any future – Especially her case being released premature. --Smartcom5 (Talk ?) 06:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So from what I've gathered it sounds like people suggest her own article because of her "rise to fame". However, what matters is whether or not her fame is discussed by WP:RS. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what matters is what those RSes establish she is notable for. And right now I see precious little reason she gets media coverage that would have happened if she hadn't killed her mother, pleaded guilty to it, served eight years of a ten-year sentence and gotten released. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (so basically delete). I edit a lot of crime articles and while I'd say I'm more inclusionist than most on the question of "should the perpetrator have an article", there's really nothing else here that isn't already in the article that would be undue on the main article, which IMO is the line for when the perpetrator should have one. I would guess she becomes notable for independent actions in the future but she is not right now and the relevant event already has an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:GNG. Subject have been in the media eye for a decade. Plenty of third party sources shows notability. Is releasing a book. And the media attention about her personally is establishing WP:GNG beyond the crime case.BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Do not redirect. A complex victim and participant in the murder, not convicted of first class murder with the one who was, so this is not just someone notable for killing someone. The post release from jail coverage cements here as worthy of an independent article. However, is do read the article as containing excessive content, it should be cut down, not merged elsewhere, but not cut down drastically. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Coverage is ongoing now. This is definitely not NOTCRYSTAL. Points of interest include her youthful dubious diagnosis, the ongoing dubious diagnosis, murder of the mother, and now post release coverage. This far exceeds the limit of BIO1E. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think that she has amassed enough attention to warrant having this article. Additionally, she's not only notable for her part in the murder. I think that insinuating such is a massive generalization. -Euphoria42 (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard. She got out of prison a week ago and hasn't done anything worthy of her own article at the moment. Her biography, the murder, and her time in prison are sufficiently covered in the existing article. She has gotten a lot of press in the last week or two, but I don't think a separate article is needed- Is there anything not covered in the existing article other than more details about her personal life and her announcement that she is going to publish an ebook? Anybar (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like it or not she keeps being interviewed and reported in the media ever since her release and that therfore contributes to significant coverage in reliable sources. Interviewed on national television by Good Morning America. Interviewed by CNN. Her release was profiled by the New York Times. Washington Post. ABC News. I mean, the sources are there. Trillfendi (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2024 (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/Gypsy-Rose_Blanchard&oldid=1208536943"