Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Annaïse Heglar

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. Daniel (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary_Annaïse_Heglar

Mary_Annaïse_Heglar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Because there was opposition to a quick deletion on the article's Talk page, I propose a deletion below.

The subject has tweeted that a biography of her is not welcome because of privacy concerns. The deletion policy does suggest that "biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." I've added a clarification template on the consensus prose (consensus to keep or delete?). In any case, this is a relatively unknown, non-public figure who requests deletion. Please keep in mind that suggesting women must have a page for their own good and to increase Wikipedia diversity is insular and naive to the risks women, especially BiPoCs face given extra publicity/scrutiny. -Reagle (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The subject stated that the article is outdated, and is worried about her privacy^[1]. This also brings up an issue with the Right to be forgotten, and how it applies to Wikipedia. That being said, Jimmy Wales did say that "History is a human right"^[2], so it's hard to decide where to lean in this situation. In either case, the article is a stub, and should've at least been a draft until more information was added. Nigel757 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per the policy cited in nom, this is a clear case where we should honour a requested deletion by a page subject. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not sure this meets the criteria for "relatively unknown, non-public figures" -- she is a journalist, paid speaker, well respected writer, and hosts a podcast -- so is by definition a public figure. Its part of the reason I didn't feel confident using such a criteria in the first discussions. Sadads (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For me this brings to mind AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Nicholson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila Bynum-Coleman; my reading of the consensus over time is that we should take a compassionate interpretation of "relatively unknown". - Astrophobe (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Astrophobe: I think we need to change the written policy then if you think its an emerging consensus, because as a set of guidance for an admin -- it is actually not setting up the conditions for me to do an empowered interpretation like that. I suspect we will get more and more of these kinds of requests as we work on diversity topics in the movement, Sadads (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• * Oppose Deletion: The question would seem to be whether the subject is a non-public figure? As a published writer, with a podcast and a large online following I don't think this definition fits. For example the UK official Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that a person with a twitter following of over 30,000 "has the attention of a significant number of people" and for the purposes of their regulation is "a celebrity" (see https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/sanofi-uk-A19-557609.html ); Ms Heglar has 45,000 followers. It's also an argument that - whatever the numbers, as a published writer and a person active professionally in building a social media profile, she is seeking to be a public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrapalhado (talk • contribs) 12:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the case is at all borderline, we delete per request. Even without a request I would advocate deleting this article because it does not meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If there were better sources demonstrating that the subject satisfies
  WP:GNG I'd reconsider, but since she's requested deletion and the sources are very weak we should delete it. pburka (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2021 (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.