Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidi Julia Bender

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Julia Bender[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial, WP:BLP1E; yes, it's an inspiring and sad story, but it doesn't meet notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that notability is questionable. — Timneu22 · talk 18:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason for writing a Wikipedia bio page for her was that Wiki has the list of Venus crater names (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_craters_on_Venus#B) and Heidi's is one of the few without a bio link. That's now corrected unless this bio is deleted. Is it Wikipedia's position that some individuals recognized as notable by governmental organizations (in this case, the U.S. Geological Survey and the International Astronomical Union) are not notable enough for inclusion in Wiki? Hjbender1 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the person is only notable for this one thing, why not just add a sentence in the related article? — Timneu22 · talk 20:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what you mean by "related article". The only article on Wiki related to Heidi is this one. Hjbender1 (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the Venus crater article. That was obvious from context. — Timneu22 · talk 00:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Wikipedia Venus crater article seems intended to be an exact reflection of the USGS and IAU planetary names listing except the names on the Wiki page include links to their Wikipedia bios. No other explanatory info is included for anyone else. Are you saying that, in this case, an exception should be made? 96.231.149.245 (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having an astronomical feature named after you is not one of the criteria mentioned in our WP:BIO notability policy. The majority of the individuals on the crater list you mention are notable for other reasons, not because they are on that list. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Basic Criterion in WP:BIO is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The first element in Additional Criteria is "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." It seems to me that Heidi definitely satisfies those criteria for notability in Wikipedia. Are you suggesting other criteria supersede those? Also, as you must be aware, nobody on the crater list is notable for being on the list! All, including Heidi, have achieved that recognition for other reasons. Hjbender1 (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, what are the reasons? — Timneu22 · talk 00:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The specific reasons the USGS and IAU chose to honor Heidi probably were done in internal discussions. The notation on her listing shows her to be an author and artist. The IAU said in a letter, "Heidi is the only child for whom a crater on Venus has been named. While she doesn't have the quantity of substantial works of other authors and artists, the USGS and the IAU recognized that a child who accomplishes so much in such a short time under such duress, and has had such a positive effect on so many people, is famous indeed." 96.231.149.245 (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        — 96.231.149.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. I cannot find enough significant secondary source material to support an article about her at this time. "Artist and author" is not precisely accurate; the Make-a-Wish foundation printed some of her work, but it doesn't appear to have been published, or reviewed in any significant way. Although there does appear to be a crater named for her, I can't find any journal articles that discuss that, or any published work that discusses it. The phrase 'famous indeed' is used, in this context, to affirm that she was important to the people who loved her, even though she was not 'famous' in the more traditional sense of the word. The article includes no independently published secondary sources, and I wasn't able to find any with my own search. I'm sorry, because I'm sure that this article was created by someone who knew and loved her, but I don't think this material is right for Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sad, but not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heidi's life was not sad - it was inspirational to a great many people, including First Lady Barbara Bush, 20 years ago. Heidi was considered notable enough by the international astronomy community to be the only child for whom a crater on Venus was named. When you say, "'Artist and Author' is not precisely accurate" you might also note, on the same Venus crater page, that Catherine Beecher is shown as an "author" and Sarah Bernhardt is an "actress" and, of course, they have Wikipedia bio pages. The Venus crater naming people were very brief in their descriptions of people. Also, just for clarification, Lucky Books and Berryville Graphics published Heidi's book, from a request by the Make-A-Wish foundation. What would be sad is if visitors curious about that named crater couldn't find bio info because Wikipedia's managers decided she wasn't notable. Is that what you want to indicate to the US Geological Survey and the International Astronomical Union? Wouldn't that show an arbitrariness that lessens the goal of Wikipedia to be a complete reference source? If the current bio has issues, those can be edited and corrected. Let's just make it better. Hjbender1 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look, Hjbender1... the consensus is becoming clear here. There's no need for you to reply to every single "delete" comment and complain. People can have opinions one way or the other, but when the same person replies to every delete statement, it's frankly quite tiresome. Your position is quite known on this issue. Thank you. — Timneu22 · talk 12:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is why I offered to delete the article for you immediately, when you posted it- so you wouldn't have to experience the AfD discussion, which can be unpleasant. I tried to communicate the rules to you in a way that would help you to see that this subject didn't work, and gave you a chance to request deletion, because I know these discussions can be an unpleasant experience. You can let the discussion run its course, you can provide independent, reliable sources that show how this person meets the notability criteria, or you can request deletion. Your reasoning, however, isn't useful at all without sources- nothing you say that doesn't include sources will affect the discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, the discussion can be quite exasperating, especially when people cite Wikipedia policies and criteria incorrectly ("doesn't meet notability guidelines") and ignore independent, reliable sources (as explained in independent, reliable sources) that I've presented. Everything I've done conforms to Wikipedia's documented expectations, but that doesn't seem to matter in this discussion. Don't know what you want. Hjbender1 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Last comment on the matter It's also exasperating when someone new to Wikipedia asserts that three editors, two of whom have been editing since 2006 and one who has been editing since 2005, don't understand policy. There are many other ways to memorialize a loved one on the web, as FisherQueen has kindly pointed out. Wikipedia is not one of them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        User:Hjbender1, you say you presented reliable sources- I'm afraid I have missed them, and I thought I'd reviewed everything you've posted on this subject. By reliable sources, we mean published sources, like newspaper articles, magazine articles, and books about her- I didn't see where you presented those, and if you have, it would definitely affect this discussion. Could you add them to the article, or share them here, or link to where you presented them? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        New users have as much right to argue a case as established users, but it is important that these debates centre on WP policy, not emotion. They should never become personal and established users should know assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Having said that, new users (particularly those who want to be taken seriously) should also take the effort to learn Wikipedia policy and understand that the encyclopedia is a collaborative effort and, therefore, have to let these debates run their course. Having got that off my chest, I'll move on to the actual debate in question! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The guidelines for determining the notability of a biographical entry are set out in WP:BIO, which states that The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.". Based on this definition, there is a prima facie argument for notability. This is not just a simple memorial or sad story. The fact that the individual has been recognised and honoured by a notable third party organisation does add a level of interest beyond what is usual. The main problem with the article, as I see it, is the lack of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, which is required for verifiability. If the claim of notability can't be verified, then we have a problem. In this case, the one thing that makes this subject unusual (and therefore arguably a candidate for notability) is referenced with a primary source (the letter from the International Astronomical Union). Successfully meeting the notability requirement would require a secondary source or sources - in other words, other people need to find it interesting or unusual enough to write about it. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case here. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added an endnote to Bender in List_of_craters_on_Venus with a little information about Heidi Julia Bender, as per Timneu22's suggestion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:47, 30 July 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.