Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Foschi

Add links
Source: 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. While sourcing depth questions remain, there is no consensus that is going to form that will result in the material being completetly deleted. ATD discussion, including a merge/mover/rename do not require an additional week of this discussion being open. Star Mississippi 19:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Foschi

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

Jessica Foschi (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)

This biography concerns a living person who is only notable for one event, to whit, being internationally banned from competitive swimming after testing positive for steroids. I don't think we should be hosting it. —S Marshall T/C 00:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 00:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and
    SPEAK 01:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep She was later found not guilty for steroids and that it was a sabotage. I think that's notable. She was also INTERNATIONALLY BANNED. Cool guy (talk • contribs) 02:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your personal opinion of
      fame and importance is irrelevant. That idea was soundly rejected in 2004. The pertinent question is "Where does the rest of the biography come from?" The person was internationally banned and … then what? Or indeed … what came before that? You have no sources, nothing at all, from which to construct a biography of this person's life and works. One event happened in 1995/1996. That event, the lawsuit, is in books on sports law and drugs tests as a case study, but it's not a biography of a person. Not everything in the world needs to be in Wikipedia in the form of biographies.

      The simple truth here is that this is a private individual whose life and works are not documented, who hit the headlines once at age 15.

      Irony: If Wikipedia editors on sports subjects actually collectively knew what they were about, they could actually cite Foschi as the author of a source on the subject of sports law, but being an author is not the same as being documented for a biography.

      Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

      ]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Coverage of Foschi covers two years of articles in the New York Times. She is a case study in a book on drugs in sports. I have started adding in details from the New York Times, Newsday, and the books. The coverage is significant coverage (including entire articles about her, e.g., the 2007 Newsday article), and in reliable sources (New York Times, Los Angeles Times[1]. DaffodilOcean (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm intrigued. You've just gone to Jessica Foschi's biographical article, and you've added that she got into a high school athletics hall of fame. And you added that in its own separate section, headed "Awards and honors", and cited a local newspaper as a source. So now I need to know: did you do that unironically? Or was that perhaps some kind of performance art? A postmodernist deconstruction of the extremes that inclusionist sports-focused editors have normalized, perhaps?—S Marshall T/C 12:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, it helps paint the picture of what she's done in the world of sport. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep One of the strongest cases I've seen, she's been the subject of at lest three articles in peer-reviewed journals, [2], sports ethics and sports philosophy mostly. Also discussed in other languages, French for example finds at least two books about her [3]. The extra info added helps color the discussion, but doesn't distract from the fact about what she did and how it has led to critical discussions over the issue, some many years after the fact. Strongest Keep I've seen here in a while. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the court case has been the subject, but not the life and works of the person. You haven't read these supposed "books about her", quite obviously.
      ISBN 9782840505143, which is actually one thing in two search results, isn't about this person at all. It's about linguistics, and it uses a press cutting mentioning this person's name as an example sentence. Corinne Rossari, the author, is a linguistics professor. You are making AFD argument by zero-effort random phrase matching and not actually reading. Uncle G (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Again, her event has led to discussions in law journals, sports ethics and philosophy journals. She's almost become the "poster child" for what doping does. She's the case discussed over and over again by academics for what happened. Heavily notable, very needed in wikipedia. Critical discussion helps us all understand better. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's absolutely true and it's good grounds to cover the event in an article about doping. We have exactly zero sources that give biographical information about Ms Foschi. Therefore the encyclopaedic topic here is doping, and that's what we should be using those sources to write about. Ms Foschi as a person is not the encyclopaedic topic. Do you see?—S Marshall T/C 15:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first two paragraphs of the article now include biographical details about Foschi, and the end of the section on her swimming career includes her wins while captain of the Stanford swimming team. In addition, her legal writing while at Duke has been noted as important. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment a well fleshed-out biographical article includes both a personal and work history section, which is what his article is. Reading the sources is not necessary as the member suggests, the fact that she's covered in at least three peer-reviewed journals makes her notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Reading the sources is not necessary"?—S Marshall T/C 15:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per
    too long or "clunky" and likely best addressed by simply linking to her article with a brief summary - I say this in part because what has been added so far to the article does not appear to completely summarize the proceedings related to the doping allegations. Beccaynr (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Beccaynr - you are absolutely right that the timeline of what happened in the doping allegations is not quite right. There are also multiple organizations involved, and I hope to sort some of them out next. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 10.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comment - The coverage of Foschi begins as a 12-year old swimmer, extends through the doping allegations, into college, past college, and into her legal work on sports law. As
WP:BASIC. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@DaffodilOcean: - I have changed your !vote above to comment as you have already voted keep in this discussion. You can't !vote twice in the same discussion. A relist is an extension of the same discussion, not a new one. Your further comments remain valid though. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies - I did not understand that this was a continuation. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, OK. Let's examine these new contentions.
  1. Of the four, the first by Bungle is the best, although I still think it's wrong. He says there are sources and coverage that significantly postdate the event. That doesn't mean they're not about the one event for which this low-profile individual is notable, and indeed when you examine them, they are. Since others are also making this claim, I refer you all to the points that UncleG made right at the start of this AfD. Nobody has challenged what UncleG said -- they've simply ignored it. Bungle then goes on to say that there can be a separate article where there's significant media coverage, which is correct but the bar for it is pretty high. That rule is why we have articles about Lee Harvey Oswald and Mark David Chapman. It doesn't mean we should have an article about an otherwise low-profile attorney who was wrongly banned from international swimming because of a test error. Finally, Bungle refers to the arguments by Oaktree b, and I would note that Oaktree b's position was comprehensively destroyed by UncleG some days ago. I would also point out that Oaktree b argued for the article to be retained because, and I quote, "It's great that she's turned her life around, but her past is her past, I don't see the issue with presenting it in a scholarly context, no matter how shameful it might be; to be blunt, don't do the crime if you can't do the time." In other words, Oaktree b somehow managed to read the sources and think she was guilty. The fact that people skim-read and misunderstand is exactly why we have the BLP1E rule in the first place. It's there to protect low-profile living people from unfair associations like this one.
  2. The other three are dire. SBKSPP says: "Meets WP:SUSTAINED AND WP:BASIC." WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BASIC are both arguments about notability -- they're literally pointers to subsections of WP:N. At issue here is not notability, which is a guideline, but BLP1E, which is a policy. Not all AfDs are about notability.
  3. Cranloa12n says: "Been nominated 3 times. 1st was keep, 2nd (dlrv) was relist (no consensus), and then this. Kinda ridiculous don't ya think?" It has in fact been nominated for deletion once, by me, and relisted by Sandstein following a deletion review. This is not even out of the ordinary, let alone ridiculous.
  4. Vinegarymass911 says exactly the same thing as SBKSPP, and his comments have exactly the same problem.
My position is that the reasons for deletion have yet to be addressed by anyone !voting "Keep".—S Marshall T/C 12:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about the coverage I noted that began with her at age 12? This coverage pre-dates the doping allegation by 2-3 years: [4] and [5] and [6]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, to address the comment that we have not addressed @Uncle G:'s point, that argument was that Foschi made the news at age 15, which is now refuted based on the new sources added since the page was originally nominated for deletion. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's look at those sources in detail. This one is about The Women's Sport Foundation, but it does contain three sentences about Jessica Foschi, from which we glean the following information about her: (1) On the publication date, she was 13 years old; (2) She was at that time from Brookville, N.I.; (3) She has met Olympic Gold Medalist
Nancy Hogshead; and (4) Nancy Hogshead was at that time one of Jessica Foschi's swimming idols. This one is about a seven-lane swimming pool in North Hills but it does contain one sentence about Jessica Foschi, from which we glean the following information about her: (1) On the publication date, she was 12 years old; (2) She was at that time from Brookville, N.I.; and (3) She broke her age-group records in the 100-, 200- and 400-metre freestyle events at the Senior Metropolitan Championships at West Point. This one confirms point (3) of the previous source and gives the specific times. And sure, I totally agree that in her teens Ms Foschi was clearly an exceptional swimmer who was favourably mentioned several times in local newspapers. I cannot agree that this justifies writing a Wikipedia article about her.—S Marshall T/C 15:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:1E even notes, If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. (yes, I know generally appropriate is somewhat subjective). There are mentions of her in press cuttings before the event, albeit not exactly significant, but then she was only 15 when the event happened. Lastly, I pointed out that I thought Oaktree b made relevant points, but that is not an endorsement of their position unquestionably in its entirety; rather that I considered the points about how the case influenced future works had relevance, but I did not rest or support my rationale on this basis. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
When you say that UncleG didn't make a formal !vote, are you under the impression that he needs to write a word in bold before the closer can take his view into account? I do agree with you that FOSCHI BY FOSCHI v. United States Swimming, Inc., 916 F. Supp. 232 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) is a notable court case. I also agree that her role in the case was a significant one although the plaintiff was her father (she was a child without standing to bring a court case on her own.) I can't agree with you that the court case was "highly significant", and I think this is where the case for inclusion falls flat. I have already pointed out that WP:SUSTAINED is a notability-based argument that is beside the point here.—S Marshall T/C 15:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FOSCHI BY FOSCHI v. United States Swimming, Inc., 916 F. Supp. 232 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) is not a notable court case, it's an order for remand to the state court that relies on an amended complaint for its facts. It is a sidelight of the significant proceedings that happened in other dispute resolution forums in which Foschi has a substantial and well-docimented role. I added it as an External link because I'm not yet sure what to do with it while the article develops. Beccaynr (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In response:
are you under the impression that he needs to write a word in bold before the closer can take his view into account? - No, but doing so is generally considered etiquette in committing to one's preferred stance. All comments are valid and I even note this in relation to DaffodilOcean's erroneous second !vote.
I do agree with you that FOSCHI BY FOSCHI v. United States Swimming, Inc., 916 F. Supp. 232 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) is a notable court case. Ok, but I didn't state this.
I can't agree with you that the court case was "highly significant" - Likewise, I didn't state this.
I have already pointed out that WP:SUSTAINED is a notability-based argument - This discussion is, among other things, a discussion about determining notability.
I don't really think I have anything further to add to this debate now and I don't wish for an evolution into an exchange of personal opinion, or justification of a stance. I have expressed a view, as have others. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
at this point this entire thing could be a novel Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 15:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a BLP1E, any more than Anita Hill is. Like that "event", this "event" became a cause célèbre and has been discussed as such. It's not just any old doping case, just as Anita Hill is not any old sexual harassment case. I do think that the doping case should be in its own section and should bring out more of the aftermath, such as the discussion in legal sources. The other option that I see is making the case the focus of an article with a redirect from her name to the article for the case. The case is definitely significant. Lamona (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anita Hill's an educator, author and public speaker who actively campaigns on sexual harassment. She continues to write for newspapers. She's a high-profile individual who continues to seek publicity for a just cause and it's right that Wikipedia has an article about her. Jessica Foschi, on the other hand, is an attorney for PWC who got wrongly accused of doping when she was 15. She's a low-profile individual within the meaning of
WP:WIALPI. The doping case is notable but Foschi's name should not redirect to it for the reasons already given.—S Marshall T/C 18:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Weight of which numbers? There are THIRTY citations in the article. As others have explained, the bulk of the coverage concerns the aftermath of her ban and the legal case study in particular is what makes her a notable subject for an article. As for number of "keeps",
WP:CONSENSUS applies. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Let's go over all of the THIRTY citations you mention.
1: This one is about the aftermath of the doping allegations.
2: This one isn't found.
Update:I have updated this citation to the clipping from newspapers.com [7]. In the article you will note while they mention her 'disappointment' at not qualifying for the olympics in the previous year, the word 'doping' appears no where in the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3: This one points to Time Magazine in 1996. It mentions page 19. I think from the URL it wants to direct you to the 11th November edition, but when I checked page 19 of the 11th November edition, it was a full-page advertisement for the Microsoft Internet Explorer Starter Kit. It contains no information about Jessica Foschi.
Update: DaffodilOcean has now improved the citation so we can see that it points at the March 1996 edition, in which Time Magazine does give reasonably detailed coverage which is entirely about the doping allegations.
4: This one is
WP:MILL
coverage from a local newspaper about the 20th anniversary of the founding of the local Women's Foundation. It contains three sentences from Jessica Foschi, who was 13 at the time, speaking about how much she admired one of her sporting idols.
5: This one is
WP:MILL
coverage from a local newspaper about a new building at Morley Park. It contains five sentences from Jessica Foschi, who was 14 at the time, speaking about how much she likes swimming.
6: This one is a proper, in-depth, good quality source. It's about the
one event
for which she is properly notable.
7: This one is
WP:MILL
coverage from a local newspaper about how much Morley Park needs the new building mentioned in source 5. It contains one sentence about Jessica Foschi, who was 12 at the time, and mentions how she broke her local age-group records in the senior metropolitan championship.
8: This one is the same as source 7 but it gives specific times.
9: This one is
WP:MILL
coverage from a local newspaper about the local athletics Hall of Fame. It contains three sentences about Jessica Foschi, and I notice that in this the most recent source she's changed her name, although that small detail doesn't seem to have made its way into the article yet. It confirms that in her teens, she was a high school athletics champion and a NCAA champion.
10: This one contains a passing mention of her in which someone beat her in an 800 metres swimming race.
11: And so does this one.
12: This one is
WP:MILL
coverage from a local newspaper about Stacey Kolota, who won a race, and Jessica Foschi, who didn't, but does hold a state record (which from the context means the state record in her age group -- the source dates to her early teens) in the 500 metres.
13: This one is good quality, serious coverage of the
one event
for which she is properly notable.
14: This one is actually a poorly-cited pointer to this source, which is by Jessica Foschi and not about her. After the doping allegations she qualified as an attorney and she currently works for PWC. Before she qualified, she wrote this one academic paper that got published. She's clearly a bright lady as well as an excellent swimmer, but she doesn't meet our standards for an article about an academic.
15: This one is a legal textbook that discusses the one case for which she's notable.
16: This one is a history of doping in sport which discusses the one thing for which she's notable.
17: And so is this one.
18: This is the only source cited that isn't online. I don't have access to it, but it's only used to verify claims about use of steroids, so it must be about the one event for which she's notable.
19: This one is a book on drugs and sports which discusses the one thing for which she's notable.
20: This one is another proper, decent source about the one event for which she's notable.
21: This one is a good source that reports she wasn't guilty of the allegations in the one event for which she's notable.
22: This one is a proper, academic source about dispute resolution in sport. It discusses the one event for which she's notable.
23: This one is from the Orlando Sentinel, and it's blocked from being displayed here in the UK. (This is commonplace with American sources that don't want to comply with British legal standards about privacy and consent to harvest user data.) It's only used to verify the same facts described in sources 16 and 17, so my position is that it must be about the one thing for which she's notable.
24: This one reports that after the final decision in the one event for which she's notable, she returned to competitive swimming, aged 19. Apparently of the 78 contenders in the preliminaries, she finished in 31st position, so it's basically reporting that she failed to qualify.
25: This one reports that at the age of 15, she came fourth in the 800 metre trials. She was, and I quote the source exactly, "a nonfactor in the race won by Brooke Bennett". It then goes on to extensively discuss the one event for which she's notable.
26: This one, dating to when she was 17, reports that she was looking forward to getting back to competitive swimming after the one event for which she's notable.
27: This one is a book about Natalie Coughlin. It mentions Jessica Foschi on one page because Coughlin beat Foschi in a 200 metres. It also alleges some behaviour by Foschi which Coughlin thought was unfair. This isn't mentioned in any of the other sources.
28: This one is
WP:MILL
coverage in a specialist swimming magazine which mentions Jessica Foschi, in passing, at the end of one single sentence on page 26. Apparently she won a 500 yard freestyle race for her college.
29: This one, I would need to register an account to verify and I can't currently be bothered. It's only used in the article to verify that she came second in a 1650 metre race for her college.
30: This one is about her brother, who apparently plays American Football, but it mentions Jessica quite a lot, talking about the one event for which she's notable.
Do you see? THIRTY sources doesn't do it. She's notable, but she's only notable for one event.—S Marshall T/C 18:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obscuring the authors, works, and especially the dates of coverage in the list above seems to obscure how she did not remain low-profile after the proceedings related to the doping allegations, and seems to obscure the persistent coverage, commentary, and analysis demonstrating the significance of those events, as well as her substantial and well-documented role. She is the common denominator in the sources over time, and many focus on her as a person, not just as a subject of a sports controversy. The article can be reorganized, but something other than "case" may need to be used to describe her experience with the proceedings and events related to the doping allegations, because encapsulating what happened into such a neat term of art is not necessarily supported by the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" is mildly debatable (the things listed as "MILL" above could take us out of that) but I'd agree. S Marshall has made a strong case for this.
  2. is about otherwise being a low-profile individual. I'm unsure as I've not looked closely, but I think that's likely true.
  3. is a bit more tricky. "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". I think that individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented isn't in debate--her role is central and the sources document it quite well. But If the event is not significant is certainly debatable. Just below that,
    WP:SUSTAINED
    (I can't think what else that word might mean). Looking at the sources above, #13 is from 2007, #15 is from 2015, #16 is from 2008 (and fairly trivial), #17 is from 1998, etc. I think we have around a dozen decent sources (including solid academic books) covering the event over the span of 20+ years. I'd call that pretty persistent and makes for a strong claim that the event is significant. So I think point #3 isn't met.
To me the only question is if we should have an event article per the suggestion of point #2 of BLP1E (the event is pretty clearly notable given the coverage) or a BLP. Deletion is off the table IMO. And if we do go with an event article, this should be a redirect rather than be deleted (per
WP:BLP1E). So I'm at keep or rename with a redirect left behind in the event of a rename. Given all !votes so far have pretty much been keep or delete arguments, the rename thing probably is best discussed on the talk page. For the record, I think a renaming to an event article is a better choice. Hobit (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I think challenges that may exist in an attempt to rename the article as an event help demonstrate the significance of the events, and Foschi's substantial and well-documented role. The sources indicate there is not simply a significant series of legal proceedings in a variety of forums, but also an event within and outside of those forums that have independent signficance for sports generally. It is Foschi who brings both together with her substantial and well-documented participation in the significant events, and sources that later focus on her and her experience seem to support this. The article still needs work to help clarify what happened, and there is plenty of research that still appears possible. Beccaynr (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly can see that. And I agree there would be some issues. But I think that it would meet the spirit of WP:BLP1E to do so. I certainly don't expect everyone will agree with me and you raise real issues. Hobit (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question one of the arguments about
    WP:BLP1E seems to be centered around low profile individuals. While during the event itself she was low profile (e.g., coverage without her consent), the articles multiple years after the event are with her consent. Given this, would she still be considered low profile? I also updated citation #2 [8] to provide the newspapers.com clip as it shows coverage of her winning the NCAA title in 500 freestyle, with no mention of doping. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That's a fine question.
      WP:LPI provides guidance. I'd say she hits "low-profile" in all of those things. She's not going out of her way to build a high profile IMO. But as I said, I've not looked closely. Hobit (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • The problem I have with the redirect idea is that it doesn't protect Ms Foschi. Her name still gets connected with the false allegations. We've already seen an editor skim the article and come away with the impression she was guilty. So if we leave the redirect we're preventing BLP1E from doing its job.—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First, when CoolGuy interpreted the article to read she had been banned it look like this [9], before the additions to the page which have made it clearer that she was exhonerated.
    Second, I don't think we can argue that Foschi needs protecting when she has consented to interviews in 1998,[10] 1999, [11] and 2007.[12] In 2001, she was also in a full-page picture in an article in the New York Times Magazine,[13] which is not on her page as it is just a picture of her with
    WP:BLP1E covers low-profile individuals. Then, combined with the coverage of her win in the 2001 NCAA 500 meter freestyle [14] and the other shorter coverage exhaustively covered above, Foschi is notable. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I was referring to Oaktree b rather than CoolGuy, in fact. On your second point I'd refer you to
    WP:WIALPI, which contains our clearest thought on the distinction between low- and high-profile individuals. It says, lightly paraphrased, that consenting to media interviews does not, by itself, make you a high-profile individual.—S Marshall T/C 17:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete by almost the same reasoning as Hobit's keep opinion. I agree entirely with the argument up to and including the judgement that whether BLP1E applies comes down to how we interpret "persistent": where Hobit decides to interpret this in line with the assessment of sustained coverage in notability assessments, here, I think BLP applies a different and higher standard; BLP subjects should just be better sourced and more generally covered than the notability assessment suggests. Thus none of the exceptions apply. While the case might be interesting enough that we should use it to create the event article Hobit discusses, we should not keep BLP-violating material in articlespace while we do this, so I am opposed to any ATD outcome other than draftify. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see an argument that persistent is greater than sustained. But 10+ good sources, including academic textbooks, over 20+ years seems like it would go over most any bar. Add in another 20, more moderate sources, and it seems pretty strong. Could you indicate where you'd draw the line here? Hobit (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll start by making a general point about BLP1E: when low-profile living individuals are the subject of a WP article because of just one event, the risk is that the coverage starts to get nosy and intrusive. With non-1E BLPs, the risk is way lower because we can get reasonable articles from just sticking to the facts, so applying the BLP rules and DUE is easier; with high-profile individuals the wealth of sourcing helps as well. So this article is in an area where I am quick to reach for the delete button.
Even so, when I first looked at this AfD I was inclined to think that the nature of the subject, with her later drawing on her experiences in her law reviews, was an exception. But looking over S Marshall's source analysis convinced me that this article is in fact an advertisement for leaning deletionist with BLPs: most of what is there would not survive a rigorous application of the BLP guidelines.
The line for me is that the sourcing should be obviously strong enough that after rigorous BLP winnowing we will have enough to have a valuable encyclopedia article. As it stands, I think we have material that could be used elsewhere, but for the reason S Marshall gave, I'd be unhappy with a rename or merge outcome to this AfD. Hence, delete or draftify. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per S Marshall's source analysis (it's in a nested reply) and per Charles Stewart's rationale. She's only notable for one event, so
    WP:SUSTAINED is met despite the fact that the coverage gravitates around one single event, which is something that SUSTAINED reminds the reader about, is worrisome. Pilaz (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I definitely agree there's persistent coverage of the case. I distinguish that from persistent coverage of the person, which I'm not seeing at all, apart from the MILL coverage in local newspapers.
    What the "persistent coverage" provision in BLP1E means is that if the event's significant enough, one event is enough. If we didn't have that rule, those crazy people whose hobby is disrupting Wikipedia would be able to use socks to start disruptive deletion nominations about Neil Armstrong or Guy Fawkes, who are after all only known for one event. The difference is though that with Armstrong or Fawkes, the event was significant enough for authors or journalists to write proper biographies of the people involved. So we've got sources for biographical details: their places and dates of birth, or their educational accomplishments, or their nationalities and ethnic origins, or their religions, or their marriages and children; you know, the kinds of sources that would let us write a biography.
    I think this takes us right the way back to all the things UncleG pointed out early on in this debate. He told us why the doping matter is best phrased as an article about the case and I invite you all to re-read what he said.—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But we do have biographical information, including from the in-depth profiles after the events, noted above in my comment, which help us write a proper biography - they are covering her as a person, including her place and year of birth, education, and swimming career accomplishments. I also think the nature of the events are biographical due to the duration, her substantial and well-documented role, and how her swimming career continued during the events. There does not appear to be a feasible way to objectify her into a "case", based on the sources, which include coverage of her as a person by multiple sources after the event. The three sports-related texts noted above take one approach to the significance of the events, while the two legal texts take another, and it is the news coverage that seems to help clarify how she also continued to be covered after the events. Beccaynr (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have a different idea of what kind of sourcing is adequate to write a proper biography to S Marshall and myself, and while I think your idea is at odds with how BLP1E policy handles low-profile individuals, it's hard to actually prove this since it depends on your unrealised picture of what the article should be. This is a problem with the AfD process: it demands fast outcomes. It's a crapshoot as to what happens to this content with the AfD as it stands if we don't reach a compromise; as a compromise, draftification allows a much longer time frame to actually see what can be done with the material. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be a difference in perspective on the events - if this was only a court case, it could matter if it was fact-driven or only a legal issue, because a case with extensive
    cleanup appears to be possible
    .
    • With regard to
      WP:WIALPI
      , she did seek media attention after the events, in 1999 and 2007, and has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication [...] as a [...] "public face" or "big name", so we seem to not be in a situation where she simply vanished off the media map after the series of events.
    • A question was raised at the beginning of the discussion about what happened after the events, and there are three sources in my comment above, including two non-routine in-depth profiles and one report focused on her and her NCAA performance, that help answer that question. Both the 2015 textbook and the 2007 news source find her law review worthy of notice, even though her later educational accomplishments are not directly related to the significant events.
    • Also, despite discussion about a rename or merge, there is no proposed alternative title or merge target, and I think this may reflect how the nature of the events are too sprawling and biographical to refer to as a 'case', and similarly, are too sprawling and biographical to effectively merge into an existing article.
    I think it will take
    some time to improve the article, but it can be improved, and the sources are sufficient to support a biography, in part due to the nature of the so-called case, but primarily due to its significance and Foschi's substantial and well-documented role, and due to how she did not remain low-profile afterwards. She does not meet all of the conditions for BLP1E, and because she did not remain low-profile, we have in-depth sources with biographical information that help develop her biography past the significant events. Beccaynr (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Jessica Foschi ATD workshop
  • Proposal #1: The current contents of the article should be draftified. A BLP-compliant stub should be created at Jessica Foschi doping case and 'Jessica Foschi' should be turned into a redirect to it. Once we figure out what to do with the current contents, the draft can be history-merged into articlespace. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer to keep the article as it is now, as Foschi had a swimming career outside of the doping case and the coverage of this wouldn't really fit in an article titled "Jessica Foschi doping case".
    talk) 12:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I'd rather delete, because this would be a BLP of a low-profile individual. But this section is a workshop section to see if there are good ATDs if we don't keep. In the absence of a credible ATD, I'm not changing my delete !vote. Cf. my reply to Beccaynr.— Charles Stewart (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postscript: Note that this ATD does not say whether Foschi will ultimately be a redirect. Hypothetically, the advocates of a Foschi bio could show that the fears of those raising BLP concerns are ultimately ill-founded because a maintainable, encyclopdic bio that conforms to our pilicies on low-profile individuals can be done. Then, perhaps, it is 'Jessica Foschi doping case' that should be a redirect to the bio. The point is that this is decided on the basis of editing done in draftspace without the AfD-speed countdown, which is in my opinion not ideal for this kind of thing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although i'd be open to supporting a rename of the article (name TBD) to shift the emphasis onto the event itself rather than the individual, the sources and overall contents would largely remain unchanged so may not address concerns raised that the individual should not have (or does not need) this matter publicised. I have tried to take an objective view on this and can see some merit shifting the emphasis away from a BLP, but she was the subject of this unfortunate affair that received significant lasting reporting, as well as the case studies that followed. There seems to be consensus to have an article, but maybe the focal point is less clear. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just replied to your earlier comment without realizing this section had been opened, so I incorporate what I just wrote by reference. Also, "Jessica Foschi doping case" both seems like an inaccurate description (see comments above, discussing how this is not a 'case') and a BLP violation due to how it sounds like she was 'doping'. Beccaynr (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm persuaded by your case that the title is a BLP violation; also if BLP1E says we can't have an article on Foschi we shouldn't even have a redirect. So I don't think this "draftify and have some stub-like coverage" is viable, but some other such proposal might be. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's do this again.
  • This Washington Post article consists entirely of speculation about Foschi's future career in the light of the doping allegations.
  • This Associated Press article is about quite a few swimmers but it does mention Ms Foschi, reporting that Tom Dolan qualified for the Olympics and Ms Foschi didn't. It then goes on to say she was hoping to qualify for the Atlanta Games, and then talks about the doping allegations.
  • This Associated Press article says she didn't qualify for the Olympic Team after coming seventh out of the eight triallers. It then talks about the doping allegations.
  • This Chicago Tribune article says she didn't qualify for the Olympic Team, and then talks about the doping allegations.
  • This article on some kind of specialist swimming-focused site, with a "high school news" hashtag prominently in its top right hand corner, talks about someone breaking a record Ms Foschi held (specifically a New York State High School record in the 500 metres freestyle). It then talks about the doping allegations.
  • This Florida Sun Sentinel article is blocked here in the UK, which as I mentioned earlier is common with US sites that don't want to comply with British standards of privacy and consent to harvest user data. In the circumstances I do very much hope the closer will click it, read it and evaluate it using their encyclopaedic judgment, rather than relying on these representations about what it says.
  • This Buffalo News article does contain three paragraphs about her at the end: one sentence about setting state records for her age group, followed by two paragraphs about the doping allegations.

I remain strongly of the view that this is a clear case of BLP1E.—S Marshall T/C 13:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These sources, in combination with all of the other sources, show there are multiple events for which she received coverage, and per
WP:BLP1E, some subject-specific notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event. Also, as a side note, per its Wikipedia article, SwimSwam is not described as 'some kind of specialist swimming-focused site' but instead as "the most-read swimming website in the world" etc. Beccaynr (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I think we should consider multiple articles. At this point we have quite a bit of sourcing and could write one about Jessica Foschi, one about the doping allegations, one about the first legal case (FOSCHI BY FOSCHI v. United States Swimming [16]), one about the second legal case (Jessica K. Foschi v. FINA [17]), and one about the legal discussion initiated by Foschi herself after this document [18]? DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would likely be confusing for the reader, because having to navigate between a collection of stubs, instead of possible subsections or narrative prose within one article, could interfere with understanding the context for which the secondary sources, for various reasons, focus on the totality of the proceedings and their impact on sports generally and sports law. The proceedings happened over the course of 19 months and relate to each other, and none of the individual proceedings appear to be independently notable. Foschi is the common link in the proceedings that are found significant by secondary sources as a whole, and her substantial and well-documented role in the entirety of the process, per
WP:BLP1E, supports including her entire experience in her article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Those are good reasons to keep this in one article, listed as Jessica Foschi. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources focused only on the legal aspects, and particularly the novel jurisdictional issues, I might advocate for another outcome, but I think we need to account for the volume of secondary commentary on the non-legal impacts on the sport and sports generally that revolve around Foschi as an individual who navigated the proceedings and her swimming career in the meantime, as well as the ongoing reporting on her swimming career, her education, and her legal writing afterwards. Beccaynr (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One article is clearly preferable to several articles. What you do is you write up the case as it appeared before the highest court it reached, and include a section called "Courts below" in which you summarize what the previous courts decided. I disagree with Beccaynr when they say "None of the individual proceedings appear to be independently notable", on the basis of the many sources Beccaynr themself linked in this AfD.—S Marshall T/C 16:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One comment - I did not suggest having 'the case' be the lead article, my suggestion was an article on Jessica Foschi AND additional articles. I think Beccaynr makes good points about a single article, but if there is just one article I feel it should be at Jessica Foschi. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are clearly not all about the case in the 'highest court', and the multiple events Foschi was involved in are larger than a 'case', based on the sources. Some of the legal sources focus on a legal aspect, but Foschi's experience is much broader than that, and extends to her well-documented swimming career, i.e. her biography, which developed before, during, and after the extensive proceedings, as well as her education and legal writing, which is also part of her biography. There does not appear to be an adequate way to accommodate all of the sources that cover far more than the proceedings and focus on Foschi in an event-focused article.
WP:BLP1E
.
WP:BLP1E also points us to the sports notability guideline as another route to establishing notability, and the sources that report and comment on her swimming career both appear to support her sports notability as well as her notability for more than one event. There is a well-documented narrative that can be written about Foschi, based on the totality of the sources that focus on her. Beccaynr (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2022 (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/Jessica_Foschi&oldid=1092106701"