Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tania Head

Tania Head

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

The article is a WP:COATRACK created about this person only after an article in the New York Times questioned the veracity of many claims she had made about being a survivor of the 9/11 attack. This article seems contrary to WP:BLP, but I leave it to the Wikipedia community to discuss it and decide. She did not seem to have encyclopedic notability before the expose. Per WP:NOT#NEWS, not everyone who is in the newspapers needs an encyclopedia article. Edison 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• If it's a permissible option, defer closure for 2-3 weeks on this to see if notability develops or dissipates. It's too early, I think, to tell one way or the other. --Nlu (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep. (started the article) This article wasn't meant as and doesn't need to be a coat rack. WP:BLP states "material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious." It's contentious, that's true; but all of the above policies listed are being strongly followed (with the possible exception of neutrality). She "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" so we know that she's notable. Regarding WP:NOT#NEWS, is the NY Times article considered "tabloid journalism"? Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the key to the nomination above is that she has no independent notability, and "15 minutes of fame" isn't enough to make someone notable. I think we'd have to see if this story persists or not. --Nlu (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is sad that this person is (likely, it seems) a hoax and is likely to become an Internet meme, but she clearly did it to herself. Her notability before the hoax discovery was marginal but close to "notable enough". There were a few frauds near the time of the 9/11 event, but she pulled her hoax off for years. We have not had a word or figure for that yet, but she is it. From now on, anybody looking for sympathy by talking at length about their story who then insists that being held accountable for specifics of their story is "too painful" is going to be associated with this person. Journalists failed to do their job by accepting an excuse like that. Just like Alan Mcilwraith, Essjay, Jimmy Wales as the sole founder of Wikipedia® and so many other imposters.--Mightyms 15:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC) — Mightyms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. This article from The New York Times that appeared on Sept. 27, 2007 about Tania Head and her possible deception: Tania Head Article from The New York Times. I'm sure you all have seen it. This "siginficant coverage" from a "reliable," "independent" source qualifies her as "notable" per Wikipedia:Notability. ask123 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She's clearly been the focus of independent, credible sources and BLP doesn't prohibit the writing of material which puts living people in a poor light, but says such statements have to have such sources. She lived a lie for years, for instance she was featured in this [1] TIME article from 2004 saying '"People cannot understand. We saw things," says Tania Head, who was injured while evacuating. "We had to make life-or-death decisions. The higher the floor, the more lonely you were. I can't get rid of my fear that it's going to happen again." She was prominent in an organisation set up for those who survived the terrorist attacks and appeared to revel in the publicity. It doesn't matter that she didn't have an article before this story broke. What matters is whether she's notable enough for an article now, and she clearly is. Nick mallory 15:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete First of all, having 1 article about her in the NY Times is not "significant" coverage. Secondly, the Times article was not ABOUT her, but merely mentioned her in passing as a quote. this is just a news story and I see no reason for an encyclopedia entry on her --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you must be reading the wrong article because The NY Times that I linked to in my post above was entirely about her. It didn't just mention her in passing. The entire article was dedicated to her and the alleged deception she perpetrated. Second of all, I'm afraid you're wrong, per WP:Notability. Read it and you will see the following text regarding "significant coverage" (i.e. "notability") of a subject:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.

"Significant coverage" is clearly defined and has nothing to do with the amount of coverage or with your personal idea or definition of the word, "siginificant." ask123 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The article we are talking about is In a 9/11 Survival Tale, the Pieces Just Don’t Fit September 27, 2007.--Mightyms 16:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The person is notable for what they do and have done, not a single event. In my opinion this isn't really a "coat rack" article at all, and I know them when I see them. Burntsauce 17:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If she was notable before the hoax was revealed, then she's notable now. If her notability depends on the hoax story, then she's just a passing news item, and not notable. Many men have beer revealed to fake military careers and medals - those news stories don't make them notable. Being the head of a "survivor's" organization might be notable if she got enough coverage - I'm neurtral on that. MarkBul 17:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)