Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Biesterfeld

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 to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 01:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brenda Biesterfeld

Brenda Biesterfeld (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:BLP1E; non-notable person known -- to the degree that she is -- for only this one incident. Zero citations on Google News for the last ten days; plainly, her fifteen minutes are up.  RGTraynor  18:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • keep. My reasons for article creation were listed in Talk:Brenda Biesterfeld. Her "15 minutes" as you disrespectfully refer to the case, caused waves which went beyond paparazzi. The case put the library policies in the limelight and the issue is not closed yet. [1] Laudak (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do you have any reliable sources suggesting ongoing notability? That link you just provided is a blog. That the issue of people surfing porn on library computers is an ongoing deal has been apparent for years, but Biesterfeld's involvement is not, and no mentions in the news media at all, anywhere, of late is telling. In any event, WP:BLP1E is unambivalent.  RGTraynor  18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Where are wikipedia articles on this apparently notable issue, then? Mukadderat (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete clear case of BLP1E and as RGTraynor says above, the issue is notable, her involvement is not TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not believe has received significant media coverage. Local yes, but no national news. Being fired for not following your boss' directive and employer policy is not notable. One event need not raise one to notability. Also, I have a sense that Wikipedia is hereby being used to promote a cause. The conflict between ALA's sensibilities and those of some communities is not new, and this episode is not particularly notable. Dlohcierekim 19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "no national news" - false. LA Times is just as national as NY Times. "Being fired for not following your boss' directive" - notability depends on context: Civil disobedience is quite a notable topic. Laudak (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • keep WP:BLP1E inapplicable: while the first event was single, subsequent chain of events followed, described and referenced in the article. At worst, the content may be merged into something like Internet porn and libraries. Do we have anything on this topic? If not, this article must be written. 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Totally spurious remark. We could probably have a featured article on the conflict between ALA's values and local community values. As a former library board member, I'm glad this did not happen on my watch. I'd back my director either way, but it could be a really tough call. Dlohcierekim 19:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: I wouldn't say it's inapplicable at all. There has been no nationwide dialog on the issue that was not already there, no laws have been passed, no local political repercussions, and Biesterfeld has dropped off the 24-newscycle's radar. If this incident had never happened, what else about Biesterfeld's life makes her notable?  RGTraynor  20:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The last question is quite unfair. People routinely become famous of a single incident. I don't say she is famous. I am claiming she is notable in views of significantly large number of people. She got an award from some society. President of other societies present her as an example of civic courage. Library committees made sessions to make decisions about porn rules, so there were local political political actions. Laudak (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
<<second spurious remark in reply to RGTraynor. Laudak's reply was interposed afterward>> OMG, I could have been the one hounded by the press, demanding why I loved/hated the First Amendment so strongly that I would have supported/opposed her firing-- nah. I'm sure there are people on both sides of this issue that would like to see the matter receive greater attention. I do not want to see Wikipedia used as a soapbox or a battleground. And apparently, the news services are not breaking down her door. Yes, this struggle will go on. Hopefully, not here. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
and your point is...? Where in the article you see any battle or soap? News are not supposed to break in one's door every day. Some events are happened and recorded. Please cite any last 10 days news about, say,... er... Margaret Ringenberg. Laudak (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Laudak That was a second spurious remark, directed toward RGTraynor, who had replied to my first spurious remark. Please look at my original "delete" for my rationale. Dlohcierekim 21:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply to points raised by Laudak One mention in the LA Times does not notability make. Nor does getting fired. Civil disobedience is notable as a subject, one/every /any act that might be described as such need not be. The fact that a lot of people might agree with her decision does not make her encyclopedicaly notable under WP:N or WP:BIO. One need not be in the news daily to be notable-- such news coverage as was never reached the level of significant media coverage. The LA Times is not a national outlet for a story occurring in California. It's just somemthing that happened in the state. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Story was in the local section of the paper. Being covered in the local section of even a national outlet is not the same as national coverage. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep andrename. difficult case. On the one hand it is one event, on the other it's about one of the classic problems in the public library profession and civil liberties more generally. she wasn't an inadvertent bystander. There will be articles about it for years in librarianship journals, as it will be used for teaching. But the notability is the event, and not her, And the event is notable because not of her getting fired, but the conflict of ethics--she deliberately violated one of the really fundamental rules about being a librarian in terms of what she considered a higher ethical responsibility. I'm trying to think of how to rename it. DGG (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable person, her 15 minutes are over. Corvus cornixtalk 23:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. After having looked at the article, I see that it is adequately referenced in multiple reliable sources and was also less than an hour old when nominated. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Exactly. While someone insinuated here that I have some vested interests in the case, I created it by an extremely random occasion and will not shed a tear if it deleted. But I spent some time to convince myself that the case was notable enough to waste an hour of my time, and I find that arguments "15 minutes of fame" are mere fast slapped sticker not addressing the topic in question. I deliberately stopped expanding this article and wait for this deletionfest to end. This lady did not and does not seek for glory, so the description "15 minutes of fame" is not only meaningless, it is also insulting. Laudak (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


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.