Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman

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 Keep there seems to be little dispute that the subject meets the usual notability standards. Although some BLP concerns are raised, the apparent consensus is that these concerns do not merit deletion. Beyond that, WP:BLP offers a mandate of considering the subject's wishes in borderline cases to push it into delete, by analogy where the subject wishes publicity of certain facts, we must consider the subject's wishes (or in this case her legal guardians) and not our own - given that she meets normal inclusion criteria. Of course, as with any personal biography, eyes need to be on it, and I'll add my own. Legitimate concern does exist that her fame could be fleeting - but the constant publicity and interest seems well established at this time. Deletion review seems concerned that this is a "single issue" biography, but there seems to be a consensus that coverage is substantial about Charlotte herself (and no doubt her own website's in depth biography will assist in keeping things honest). In short - consensus is that she meets WP:BIO, and we're not this girl's parents - we shouldn't be proclaiming we know better than they do about how to treat her humanely. WilyD 19:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman

Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was speedy-deleted after some concerns were expressed over its compliance with WP:BLP. DRV determined that there was significant dispute over the applicability of BLP, given the subject's voluntarily (through the agency of her parents) expressed desire for publicity. Also at issue are concerns over notability; though there is press coverage, it is unclear whether the subject meets the requirements of WP:BIO, even if BLP problems are resolved. Deletion is on the table, as are any alternatives that would merge the content to other appropriate articles (see the DRV for some suggestions.) Per the suggestion of ArbCom, the page will be left protected blank -- with history available -- for the duration of the AfD. Xoloz 02:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • keep In this case, I think I would say intrinsically notable. I know that's a judgment call. DGG (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, BLP concerns are nonexistent because the article is well-sourced, notability concerns are addressed by several years of widespread publicity (the same sources), topic is appropriate as widely covered example worthy of detailed coverage beyond mere mention in the main article. Needs cleanup for inappropriate tone, but deletion is not the solution. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Multiple sources and the parents have expressly sought publicity. I don't see the problem. Nick mallory 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Locally in NZ she is most likely very notable. In the article's notability may wain, but for now this should be kept and developed. Whilst WP:CRYSTAL, it is likely there will be media followup on the subject as time goes on. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Interim Suggestion Rewrite the blurb on the article page right now to remove all the acronyms. We can use them here but mainspace articles, even placeholders, should be clear to the average reader so they know what's going on. --Charlene 03:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable with references.Callelinea 03:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep good article. Dfrg.msc 04:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, this has snowballed by now. Notable person, passes WP:RS, meets WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Before closing this as speedy, check out the number of deletion comments at DRV. Delete because no one has yet convinced me that an encyclopedia is an appropriate place for a collection of articles about people whose only claim to importance is having survived some trauma, whether it be a criminal act or, as in this case, a horrible disease. As far as the claim of "several years of widespread publicity" is concerned, this is a 3 year old child, so I'm not sure how you get to "several years". The fact that a 2006 documentary continues to air on cable channels in different countries does not persuade me, as cable TV has 8000 hours of programming to fill every year, and I don't believe we have articles on every person whose medical drama is profiled on the Discovery Health network. The most recent reliable article in LExisNexis is a year old, suggesting that like most victim survival stories, this is was a flash in the pan. AnonEMouse at DRV suggested that some people who are disease survivors do meet our importance guidelines, and mentioned Joseph Merrick. I'll tell you what, when Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman meets the Queen of England, I'll reconsider. Thatcher131 12:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Her "15 minutes" seem to have been 3 years: she has received non-trivial coverage in newspaper articles and television stories [2] [3] in 2004,[4] 2005,[5] and 2006.[6] She has an hour-long television documentary about her.[7] [8] It's currently, in 2007, playing in Finland (actually I can't read Finnish well, but is that even the same one? It seems to say something about Australian and 2006). We have a clear standard as to who is and is not notable, it's specifically referred to at the start of this discussion, it's called Wikipedia:Notability (people) (WP:BIO), and non-trivial coverage by multiple independent reliable sources is the primary notability criterion. All that coverage meets it, without a doubt. The only policy reason to break those rules and not to keep this article would be Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and that's supposed to make the encyclopedia better, not worse. I can't see how deleting this article will make the encyclopedia better. The additional fact that her family relies on publicity to get donations to support the non-negligible cost of her artificial limbs shouldn't be our primary concern ... but it tugs on my heartstrings nicely. Frankly, I, and I suspect most of us, joined this project to make the world just a little better place, just a little bit. Don't know about you, but keeping this article will probably do that more than most of my articles on Audrey Landers or Alice Barnham. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • How many small bands, startup companies, and first-time authors would benefit from the publicity of a Wikipedia article? We delete their articles without mercy, without even considering how many lives might be affected. And suppose, hypothetically, that it is discovered that some of the money has been used for trips and big screen TVs and other luxury items? It wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened. Would you then accept responsibility for the fraud, as you now desire to contribute to the family's welfare? Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion, no matter how well-intentioned. Thatcher131 10:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just looking at one national publication, there have been 44 stories about her over a three year period in the New Zealand Herald alone: [9] This goes beyond 15 minutes of fame. Her ongoing efforts to cope with amputation of arms at the elbow and legs at the knee have clearly been notable in New Zealand. In addition, the New Zealand Herald 7/3/06 says she "became the face of the campaign" to get children immunized against the meningococcal disease, which is an enduring societal effect comparable to all the "Amber alert" legislation and other societal remediation efforts named after a victim, which have almost always resulted in articles being kept in previous AFDs. As for "do no harm" her father has constantly put her forward as an example and sought press coverage (pretty much the diametrical opposite of the Allison Stokke anti-publicity campaign by that athlete's father). A medical case would not be notable even with a flurry of press coverage at the time of the case, but years of national coverage tends to make a medical case encyclopedic. She goes beyond being "notable for a single event" because the continuing coverage, over a period of years, does not just say "she got sick and suffered amputations" but is of her continuing progress and adaptation, learning to use new prosthetic limbs, etc. Edison 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No real claim of notability here. Having a medical condition alone is not grounds for a biography in an encyclopedia. And the existence of thrid party sources are a red herring here. The same as local bands, local small businesses, college professors, or many other types of non-notable subjects, some people might generate mention in the media but still not be notable per our standards about what is encyclopedic. People do warrant encyclopedia article if they have a medical condition that is unique. Sadly her medical condition is not rare but common. People such as Wadlow, a record holder as the tallest person; Bridgman, the first deaf-blind American child to gain a significant education in the English language; or Merrick who is very well known in popular culture as The Elephant Man due to his relationship with the royal family, bioghraphies, and a successful modern film; are encyclopeic. But I'm still not seeing Cleverley-Bisman as an encyclopedia article...an full biography...rather I see some encyclopedic quality content that could go in several articles. FloNight 20:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not about merely having the condition, it's being a face of a national publicity campaign. You don't even mention that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That is old and outdated information...she not longer is. I fear the article will be stale information about the illness and her short period of fame. This data is about a short term incident in her life. She is now settling into a normal life and will soon fade from the publics memory. That is a good thing but a sign that she is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. FloNight 21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If she wishes to generate publicity for her cause, and her cause be noble, then it would be quite a tragedy for her to fade from public memory. Of course, WP can't waive standards to help promote her; but neither should we make assumptions about the best possible shape of her future. Xoloz 23:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I was just about to write something like that. Flo, to be more specific, did you catch the part where the family relies on public donations to help pay for her artificial limbs? As Xoloz writes, that shouldn't make the difference in waiving our policies, but "will soon fade ... That is a good thing" sounds kind of heartless, and I imagine you didn't mean it the way it sounds. Want to strike it?
In fact, "a short term incident in her life" is kind of strange too. She lost all four limbs, surely you don't mean that's a short term incident in her life. At most short term in the world's attention, but it's probably going to be the dominating factor in her life, all of it. Want to rephrase that too? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh for heaven's sake. I know a man who was born with stubs for legs and one arm, and he has a full-time professional job, fathered children, etc. Or how about the many tragic amputees as a result of the US involvement in Iraq? The question is not whether a person has been touched by tragedy or whether she has herocially risen above it. And we most certainly should not be influenced by the fact that her parents are soliciting donations for her care and need the publicity--WIkipedia is most certainly not and vehicle for self-promotion and if this fact controls the outcome here then you undermine every case for deletion of small local bands, startup companies and first-time self-published authors. The controlling fact is whether she has encyclopedic importance. Maybe she was the face of the vaccine campaign in 2005 and 2006 but she is clearly no longer the face of the campaign; the press' fickle attention span has turned, as it is wont to do, to a new victim. Thatcher131 10:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
His point wasn't that we should allow self-promotion, it was that the assertion that spreading her story would harm her is completely off-base. As for the rest, notability doesn't vanish. We've got everybody from one-hit wonder bands to Wesley Autrey, and no longer being so publicly prominent is not a cause to delete their articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I speak from experience...part of my job was doing follow up with families that had high risk pregnancies and infants. It is a common coping stategy for families to be very involved in organizations related to their medical condition for awhile. But as the famalies adapt to the situation most families settle into a normal life. As I said above, this is usually a good thing as most people want to be normal rather than sensational. FloNight 12:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps your experience, and Thatcher's also, is clouding your ability to judge this case impartially (I say this because you two are the lone dissenters here, and the supporters are convincing me -- I was initially skeptical.) It appears that this youngster, because of the gravity and uncommon severity of her condition -- and perhaps because of her home in a smaller nation -- is more likely to remain in the public eye for some time. Your everyday experience with these sufferers may not be entirely applicable here. Xoloz 14:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, there were others opposed to restoration at DRV; although I won't canvass them. The point, for me, is that Megan Kanka is named or her death cited in over 125 articles in the last 6 months, 13 years after her death, while Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman is cited in zero articles in the last 6 months and only 2 articles in the last year. Charlotte is not even cited in recent articles touting the instutition of free meningitis vaccines. Megan is named in newspaper articles from all over the world, Charlotte is only named in newspaper articles from New Zealand. I will grant that LexisNexis only gets a subset of potential reliable sources, but it is a significant subset, and based on this result I conclude that Charlotte is not in the public eye any longer, and does not have sufficient importance for a biographical article in an encyclopedia. I am trying to advocate here for a standard that excludes flash-in-pan type stories. For example, I would not expect a story on yesterday's steam pipe explosion in New York City, because although it was bigger than most, and one person died, it was mostly a routine event that happened to get on TV a lot but is not really an encyclopedic event. Charlotte's case is tragic, but lots of kids get sick, and sometimes their parents make web sites and get on the news for a while. It looks to me like Charlotte has either been bypassed by the NZ newsmedia in favor of another child who died from meningitis, or her parents are pulling back into a normal life, or both. I think that if Charlotte had been born and gotten sick in 1999, so that she was 5 years old and in kindergarten in 2004 when this article was started, with no sources newer than 2003, there would be no question that this would be a speedy deletion. I have the technical resources to search through the newpapers and magazines of the 80s and 90s to find sick kids who were briefly famous but who have now fallen back into obscurity. But I lack the enthusiasm for such a project. Thatcher131 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I would snow close this, but for the DRV issue (I'll let an admin take it). This kid made world news, is surely verifiable! Giggy UCP 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment a quadruple amputee's continuing progress and development would seem as encyclopedic in general as Helen Keller dealing with blindness and deafness, or the Dionne quintuplets dealing with being part of a multiple birth. Continuing in depth coverage in multiple national publications satisfies WP:N and trumps an editor feeling that a medical condition just isn't important, or their noting that lots of people are multiple amputees. I can find no policy justifying deletion on such arguments. This article seems to fit in criterion 2 of the essay WP:NOTNEWS " causing a notable change in societal behaviour or norms, etc." by serving as the face of the vaccination campaign, in the same way the an otherwise nonnotable injured animal was notable as Smokey bear , the face of preventing forest fires in the US, during his lifetime from 1950-1975. Edison
    • I would be more convinced by your argument if there actually was "Continuing in depth coverage in multiple national publications". There simply is not. In the last 12 months the only coverage is a single story on 27 July 2006, reported in two different newspapers, about a demonstration at the NZ Parliament. The story is 310 words, and describes her pink outfit and her toy windmill. It says nothing about her disease and recovery except "A year ago, Charlotte lay in intensive care fighting for her life in an Auckland hospital, just before the vaccine was introduced." Can you find even one reliable source since that date documenting "Continuing in depth coverage in multiple national publications?" Thatcher131 17:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment By Thatcher's argument of "no longer the face of the campaign" we would have to edit out mention of the living bear from the article about the Smokey bear anti-forest fire campaign, which existed before and after the living symbol. Notability does not expire, and press coverage over a period of years can be sufficient to satisfy WP:N without extending to the present, for someone or something which reliable and independent sources describe as "the face of" a campaign at some period in the past. I do not have access to multiple news sources in NZ, but the link I posted above showed several as recently as last July in the NZ Herald. Edison 17:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Continuing coverage doesn't mean we only have articles about things newspapers keep writing about until the sun burns out; three years of coverage is a long time. It's plenty to show that this isn't just an article about a trivial event on a slow news day, the "extremely short lived usefulness" and "one-shot news event" talked about in places like Wikipedia:News articles, the "15 minutes of fame" which a wise and respected arbcom clerk referred to above. :-) Note that the interest in her is clearly continuing even now, as shown by the documentary being shown on the other side of the planet from where it occurred. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
        • (Edit conflict) I remain unimpressed by the fact that a cable channel that specifically programs recycled documentaries is recycling this one. Thatcher131 18:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Reasonable disagreement is one thing but straw man arguments insult both of us. Yes indeed, the NZ Herald published a story in July about a demonstration at Parliament. It did not discuss Charlotte in biographical terms and gave no information on her disease or recovery. It said she wore pink. (Did you actually read my post?) Please note that when the NZ government announced in 2007 that the meningitis vaccine would be distributed for free in 2008, Charlotte was not mentioned at all. Also note, for what it's worth, that Charlotte's own web site has not been updated since December, 2006. One of the things that distinguishes an encyclopedic event from newspaper coverage is the persistence of interest. I have not previously advocated for deletion on BLP grounds, but if this article is kept, then according to our own policies this article will remain frozen in amber, unable to be updated, since she is no longer of sufficient interest to generate reliable sources. Even if Charlotte herself was to try to amend the article in 2019 to say, "Charlotte graduated high school this year and has completely adjusted to life with prosthetics" we would have to delete it for lack of verifiability. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman will forever be a crippled 3-year old, since that is when the press moved on to someone else and the flow of reliable information ceased. Thatcher131 18:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thatcher131 and Flonight, and in the name of human decency. --Tony Sidaway 23:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Dear Tony, that is a wonderful goal, but which human are you trying to be decent to, please? Surely not Charlotte or her parents, who actively seek out publicity, at least partly because they need donations to pay for her artificial limbs.[10] [11] [12] [13] Or do you believe you know their needs better than they do? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Charlotte, her parents, and most of all, myself. I would not be a human being if I supported the abuse of Wikipedia for trash like this. --Tony Sidaway 00:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you. Lucky I'm a mouse then! (Sorry.) More seriously, I believe two principles: first, that Wikipedia is better served by including clearly notable articles by our standards; and, second, that basic human decency means respecting the relevant humans' evident wishes rather than forcing ours upon them. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion as well; I just hope no others share it, and you never get to force your decency upon me. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I'll accept the decision of this discussion, and do my best not to vomit. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Since your curt comments appear to equate this little girl with "trash", you done a job of making me want to vomit. Xoloz 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Non-trivial coverage in the name of an abstract subjective concept. --MichaelLinnear 05:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. Did Cleverley-Bisman survive the artificial limb operation? I wish their family well. Yamaguchi先生 04:28, 23 July 2007 (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.