Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliet O'Neill

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 clear consensus, which defaults to Keep.....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet O'Neill[edit]

This is basically a biography article for a person who had only one notable event happen to them. There's simply nothing else notable that this reporter has done other than things directly linked to having her home raided by the RCMP concerning the Maher Arar case. And the article on that case already discusses it (and I just added in whatever additional information THIS article had into the section there, which was not much). A biography article should not be centered around one solitary event...especially since most of the discussion of that event concerns the repercussions in the police/courts, not the actual actions that O'Neill took. In short, doing one notable thing so far is not enough reason for an article, especially when that one notable thing already has sufficient coverage elsewhere. Someone reading Maher Arar will see the Juliet O'Neill's name in blue, click on it, and learn...absolutely nothing, because everything notable about her has already been covered in the article they WERE reading. Unless somone can come up with anything else notable that she's done, this is better served as a redirect into Maher Arar: Initial media controversy. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and BLP1E. There's no value added to this article and I can't find any sources not related to the covered issue. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ArcAngel (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it seems counter-intuitive to say "Nothing notable happened...oh, and the article is just filled with reports of the legal fall-out after her incident" - O'Neill is most easily compared to the Canadian version of Judith Miller (journalist), the fact the article in its current state bothers you should push you to improve the article, not try to have it deleted. There are 4,000 news articles about her role in the Arar case (notice these are articles about O'Neill, not written by her) - so if you can't find any sources, I'm afraid you're either blind or not looking. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dig to the next pages on Google [1] and the number falls to <450, all of which are about the Arar issue and many of which are duplicated content - check your glasses. Eusebeus (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any coverage about her work OUTSIDE of the Arar case? Because I looked, and didn't find anything. I fully acknowledge that her involvement with the Arar case was notable, I simply do not think that there is enough notability to warrant a biography of her. She is not a notable person, it was a notable event that happened to involve her, and the event is already well-covered on Wikipedia. It is not the current state of the article that bothers me, per se, it is the fact that she is not notable beyond one event. 4000 references to that same one event does not change that. If you can find multiple reliable sources that support her notability beyond the Arar case, I welcome its inclusion. I don't believe they can be found, but feel free to prove me wrong. This is a textbook case of WP: ONEEVENT, which everyone should be familiar with. --Ig8887 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a brief read of Judith Miller (journalist) tells me that she is notable for several different events, such as the coverage of the WMD case, the Plame affair, and writing several books on subjects unrelated to either of those cases. If you can provide the same breadth of notability for Juliet O'Neill, then I will agree with you that she should have her own biography. --Ig8887 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added details on her 1986 flash of fame as the only reporter to capture Gotlieb's slap, and publish the story - leading to "international" attention. But really, what do you call "working on" a story, she's "worked on" the Chalk River story the same Miller "worked on" the WMDs story -- I don't really see a grand difference between the two. Ultimately, they are both best-known for a single "event", but because that event had political and judicial consequence, they are meritable. I mean even Ziad Jarrah is only notable for "a single event". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not other biographies suffer from this problem doesn't affect this one. Sidetracking this AfD into whether or not Judith Miller is an appropriate biography doesn't change the fact that this one isn't, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The information you added doesn't really tell us anything about O'Neill, other than that yes, she has reported on other stories, which I guess confirms that she's a reporter. Was she a significant part of that other story, or was she just there? Because the link you provided literally says nothing other than, "She was there and reported it." --Ig8887 (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Sherurcij. Is notable for multiple events. I'd also suggest that given the non-negative nature of the the involvement with the Arar case and the extreme attention that that got it might be enough to override BLP1E issues anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject in her homeland, connected with a very notable case. However I urge all information to be carefully policed to make sure it's WP:BLP-compliant. That includes possibly locking down the article to non-registered editors. Wikipedia does not avoid controversial topics or articles on people involved in legal issues, but this one has the potential to cause problems if not handled correctly. 23skidoo (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Ahar case. She isn't independently notable. Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be giving undue weight to a single legal action in the Arar case, to waste five paragraphs out of thirty, discussing the reporter was had a legal battle of her own in his article, imho Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I was already able to boil eveything that wasn't already in the Maher Arar article down into a single additional two-sentence paragraph, then. --Ig8887 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the freedom of press issue is sufficient notability. It will be a permanent precedent & possibly in other countries also.DGG (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in her own right; brief if intense media attention thanks to the infamy of the Arar case up here in Canada, but beyond that completely unknown. Fails WP:BIO/BLP1E + NOTNEWS for good measure. Eusebeus (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability based on multiple events, including an ongoing legal battle that transcends any one individual incident used as a flimsy pretense to trot out the usual WP:BLP1E excuse. The Wikipedia:Notability standard is clearly satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2008 (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.