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. Could also be no-consensus. It seems like GNG is handily met here. BLP1E is a mite more questionable, since there is a disagreement about whether "never again msd" and the comments at the Florida state capitol are separatable from the shooting themselves and we don't have a crystal ball that tells us whether she'll remain high profile outside of the topic - typical issue with BLP1E/NOTNEWS deletion nominations soon (for a given definition of "soon") after the event. A merger might be worthy of its own discussion. The NOTNEWS point seems to have been drowned out completely here, which is a problem since NOTNEWS is a fairly high-level policy and applying it to a concrete deletion discussion requires some careful consideration. Concerns about NPOV or advocacy have too little support either by headcount or by argument - NPOV issues need to be explained, not merely asserted with a short "Delete: NPOV violation", and the advocacy concern appears to rely on guessing editors' motives and I see no policy or guideline to support that. To sum up, the policy-grounded case for delete is not strong enough to outweigh the keep case, although a deletion nomination a year or so down the line may see things differently. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Emma Gonzalez

Emma Gonzalez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS Chetsford ( talk) 08:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 09:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 09:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 09:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 09:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Deleteit was an AMAZING speech. However it's BLP1E, so she is not notable for this alone. If her activism continued over a year or so with the same coverage, an article would make sense. Merge to Never Again MSD. Not Keep Notable on her own, but her profile seems to be changing by the hour. Here's a full profile article in the Washington Post. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 10:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting or (if it survives its own AfD) Never Again MSD. WP:BLP1E/ WP:TOOSOON, should not be standalone until she does something else notable. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Merge to Never Again MSD is OK too, if that survives AfD. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

There's no need to merge this into Stoneman Douglas High School shooting as the entire content of this article is basically already replicated there. There's nothing to merge, in other words. In the absence of actual content to merge, we should allow the privacy of this BLP1E to be maintained by not turning her name into a permanent redirect to the shooting. It's unlikely people will search for her name. Chetsford ( talk) 20:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

You seem like you have some animosity here. Let the girl have her article. I searched for her name. Her speech went viral. Certainly not the last time we hear of her as she is a new poster child for gun control debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajahnbrahm1401 ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

"You seem like you have some animosity here." I do? "Let the girl have her article." A Wikipedia biography isn't a prize at the county fair. I wouldn't wish a WP biography on my worst enemy. "Certainly not the last time we hear of her" Please see WP:CRYSTALBALL. Chetsford ( talk) 00:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

User:Chetsford, have you seen the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article recently? Almost all the references to Gonzalez, all of her quotes (including the quotes from her speech), and all of the quotes from students, have been deleted. (The section on "Conspiracy theories" is longer than the section explaining the students' complaints.) That's why an editor started the Emma Gonzalez page. I would invite you to read the talk page, and restore the Gonzalez quotes, and other student views, into Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Then we could reasonably consider deleting the Emma Gonzalez page. -- Nbauman ( talk) 17:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

"I would invite you to read the talk page, and restore the Gonzalez quotes" I have never edited Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and am unlikely to start. While I have no doubt it's an important article, my editing on WP focuses on AfDs and articles related to biographies of early 20th century University of Pennsylvania faculty, and contemporary Czech history. Also, as a general rule, it's best if one applies desired edits directly instead of soliciting other editors to do so as this runs the risk of crossing the line into meatpuppetry. Thanks. Chetsford ( talk) 18:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge as suggested above. Worth a sentence or two for now. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 13:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

*Merge - Worth a few sentences in the article on the shooting since I fail to see how she is notable outside the incident. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 13:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge as suggested above. The subject does not fit the criteria for notability. Maybe one day she will be notable, but she is not yet. Talagan ( talk) 22:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete This is one of the worst violations of NPOV policies I have ever seen. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

How so? Even if it does not belong here, everything is sourced and factual. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 03:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Merge as above but my hunch is that her article as a stand-alone BLP will be back soon.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC) changing to Keep -- Gonzalez is getting national attention by going to Florida state capitol to speak with legislators. So it's no longer BLP1E because (1) survivor (2) forming group Never Again MSD and now (3) going to state capitol.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 09:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I think you are correct. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

This is still BLP1E. If she gets coverage in another 2-3 months or on a different angle (not related to the shooting) - it would skirt out of it. But if she's notable for speaking a few times after the shooting - it is still in the 1 event zone. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Here's the BLP1E ruling...

(1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

(2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

(3) If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

There are two, maybe three events now: (a) surviving the shooting (b) organizing Never Again MSD (c) rally to meet with legislators in Tallahassee, which clearly passes her on point (1). Further, do you think she's "likely to remain a low-profile individual" as in (2)? Nope -- huge coverage of her. Further, the event was significant, and this person's role in the event was both substantial and well-documented as per point (3). Clearly Gonzalez passes the BLP1E test, and passes the WP:GNG many many times over.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

This is one event - speaking up after the shooting. She's quite likely to remain a low profile individual - she'll get 2-3 news cycle worth of coverage, and that's it. She might become high profile in the future, but there's little reason to assume she will. Media often picks up on human interest stories in the wake of big tragedies. Sometimes such stories persist - usually they don't. Her role in the shooting is insignificant, and her role in speaking up after the shooting hasn't actually done much yet beyond garnering media attention - now, if this speaking actually turns into legislation or some other change - it would become significant. If all it amounts to is blowing steam after a tragedy - sorry - but no. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge Keep and keep history. There is a strong possibility that the subject will be featured in sources in the near future, which would justify an independent article. The material in this article could be preserved in both Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and Never Again MSD to varying degrees.- Mr X 🖋 14:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  I have changed my !vote to keep per WP:1E. The coverage of Emma Gonzalez is sustained, and significant. The guideline instructs "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." and "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Ms. Gonzales is being lauded as a leader of a movement, covered in news sources across the globe including in the Hindustan Times, Newsweek, Billboard, PBS, Forbes, People, CNN, Us, Time, The Independent, The New York Times, Deutsche Welle, The Telegraph, Aftenposten, Times of Israel, O Globo, Le Figaro, The Hindu, The Japan Times, The Boston Globe, The Hill, Paris Match, Le Temps, Le Devoir, Der Spiegel, Sydney Morning Herald, South China Morning Post, The Australian, and several times in the Washington Post: [1]. USA Today says "The leading search topic related to gun control is Emma Gonzalez." I urge other commenters to consider changing their !votes in light of this avalanche of sources.- Mr X 🖋 13:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete or Merge to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting Never Again MSD because WP:TOOSOON; plus insuffiient SIGCIV of her as an individual activist to support independent notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Major kudos to Emma Gonzalez, but this article should be merged for now. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 16:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per OP. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 20:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete she is only notable (at the moment) because of one event. Merge would be fine. Ghoul flesh • talk 20:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete, and don't merge This person is not notable. We should not merge this into Never Again MSD because neither article mentions how Emma Gonzalez relates to MSD, other than the fact that she made a speech. Having a section about this person in that article wouldn't make sense. Gamebuster (Talk)║ Contributions) 02:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Never Again MSD or Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Emma Gonzalez is not currently all that notable, other than a couple of days of publicity. Making an article about her is premature, although she might be notable enough sometime in the future. Dreadwyrm ( talk) 02:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Never Again MSD. Here's the source that connects the two topics:

• Kasky recruited Hogg and Gonzalez for Never Again at the rally, where he also spoke. “We said, ‘We are the three voices of this.’ We’re strong, but together we’re unstoppable,” Kasky said. “Because David has an amazing composure, he’s incredibly politically intelligent; I have a little bit of composure; and Emma, beautifully, has no composure, because she’s not trying to hide anything from anybody.” “All these kids are drama kids, and I’m a dramatic kid, so it really meshes well,” Gonzalez added. "How the Survivors of Parkland Began the Never Again Movement", New Yorker

Should she fall out of the group, the content could be removed from the target article. For now, the name is a plausible search term and there should be a space for this content on Wiki. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete, not Merge. If there turns out to be some documented role and this organization turns out to have some permanence, then there is no prejudice against future inclusion in MSD or even a dedicated article. Agricola44 ( talk) 05:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep, at least for the time being. As mentioned above, there's a strong probability that she will maintain notability. Consider that, having earned 144K followers on Twitter in just a week or so, nearly anything she says or does will get media attention. -- Zanimum ( talk) 13:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge: This event, while tragic, is not of the scale that would warrant a minor actor like her to have an independent article. If she were to have one, the murderer (the main actor in this event) would certainly need one. However, there is little coverage of any accomplishments or substance to this person beyond her speech/views and certainly nothing of any lasting significance as yet. -- Veggies ( talk) 15:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting#Aftermath. I strongly oppose a merge as the "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting" article isn't about her so she shouldn't be given undue weight. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• In light of recent events I agree to MERGE to Never Again MSD. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per BLP1E Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment - FYI to those citing WP:BLP1E. This subject does not meet criteria 2 and 3 of the guideline. Each of the criteria have to be met for the policy to apply.- Mr X 🖋 19:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  Npthing to indicate 2 is not met. As for 3 - we have loads of single news cycle coverage of her speaking - iffy. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Precisely. Criteria 1 and 2 are met. There is no indication of this person becoming a high-profile individual thus far. As for criteria 3, one emotional speech rife with inaccuracies among many does not equal a substantial role in a significant event. -- Veggies ( talk) 20:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't know how better to show that an individual's role is both substantial and well documented than by showing that there is non-trivial coverage in sources from all over the planet as I have above. I think that's more than sufficient to justify an article. She's already a high profile individual, by any reasonable definition of the term.- Mr X 🖋 21:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Agree with user:MrX on the above. Darkest Tree Talk 22:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

No, no, no, no. Perhaps you and I differ on the meaning of "substantial" but a speech made after a mass-shooting, well-received or not, does not ipso facto convey on the speech-giver a "substantial" role in an event. The Peter Wang article has a stronger argument for preservation. She is not a major player in this event (the shooting) by any but the most contrived definitions. Any little substance (cf. "substantial") can be telescoped into the shooting article. -- Veggies ( talk) 01:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, yes, yes, yes. This not about the shooting, so that's a pretty obvious red herring. Gonzalez has a significant role in a significant movement. It's absurd to suggest that her role is insignificant when news organizations all over the planet have written featured articles about her, and continue to cover her role as recently as a few hours ago. The two main criteria for an article to exist are notability demonstrated by significant coverage in independent sources and compliance with WP:NOT. WP:BLP1E is not meant for this type of subject. It's meant to keep articles about high-school football stars and drunk drivers out of the encyclopedia. - Mr X 🖋 14:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Nope, sorry. The movement is significant (and has been for decades). Her role in it has yet to be seen (beyond an emotional and error-filled speech). I don't see anything within the last few hours touching on her except some opinion pieces on popular blogs that use her as a springboard for a broader policy thesis. I'm reminded of Ruslan Tsarni, the uncle of the Tsarnaev brothers who made a far more impressive speech after the Boston marathon bombings. It was well received, there were newspapers from all over the country remarking on his speech, one-on-one interviews with the man. But five years later, his story is one of a brief blip of notability tangentially related to a more important event followed by a return to a low-profile life. I see no evidence of anything of significance or substance related to this girl that cannot be telescoped into any number of articles. -- Veggies ( talk) 18:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank dog we don't delete articles about notable subjects simply because editors believe the subject has not made an impressive speech. - Mr X 🖋 19:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

That's correct. I'm not sure why you brought it up. It's not the argument I'm making, but, you're correct. -- Veggies ( talk) 19:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is too early to say if Criterion 3 of WP:BLP1E is met. It's also hard to make the WP:NOTNEWS argument. Subject of the article is notable, event she is associated with is notable. If in six months or a year she is no longer notable or meets all three criteria of WP:BLP1E, then we can merge to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. There is no cause to delete this article at this time. And remember that all three criteria of WP:BLP1E must be met in order to qualify the article for deletion. Darkest Tree Talk 22:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete or merge to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Never Again MSD. Everything this person does is only noteworthy in the context of existing articles. I have no prejudice against mentioning her as appropriate in any article, but half a sentence is enough to give context, e.g. "shooting survivor Emma Gonzalez said XYZ..." A separate biography isn't warranted. Right now her notability is akin to contestants on reality shows who gain news coverage in relation to the show, not for their life's work. From a historical perspective, almost every news article is a borderline primary source: we need not write encyclopedia articles at the same rate nor depth of daily news. --Animalparty! ( talk) 22:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Precisely. -- Veggies ( talk) 01:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I suspect that the thousands of readers seeking her biography on Wikipedia would disagree with you.- Mr X 🖋 15:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

And a couple years ago, thousands of people were searching for that boy who made international news for bringing a clock to school, yet we discuss him in context of the event for which he became notable. Wikipedia is not everything. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep for now per the sources provided by MrX. Remember, Wikipedia is not in a hurry to create or delete an article. This individual garnered attention for their role as a survivor of the Douglas High shooting and for her role as a gun control advocate. This individual, at this point, is not going to remain a low-profile individual as described in WP:BLP1E criteria 2. We can always revisit this issue within a month or two and determine notability. If it is deleted, we can always reexamine notability in the future. CookieMonster755 ✉ 04:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  There's no reason to assume she won't be back into low-profile mode in a month from now. She was one of many students who spoke up. She caught the media's eye (copy-pasted and synthesized into similar stories in multiple outlets). The media's eye often moves on. This being under discussion is a clear case of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. We actually had AfDs on terrorist incidents (with multiple fatalities, some cases even more than this one) in Iraq, India, Africa, and elsewhere - which were close calls (and even, IIRC, some deletes). In this tragic shooting and political aftermath - the multiple spinoff articles are a bit too much. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

it's not systematic bias when the incident (mass murder school shootings) happens repeatedly, predictably and primarily in one Country: The USA. Saying it is systematic bias is a fallacy of faulty comparison. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 23:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Neutral – though I would support a merge if needed. CookieMonster755 ✉ 13:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep I cleaned up some of the fluffery, conforming the citations and removing the long quotes in the citations. I initially thought maybe this should be a Merge but the more I learn about Gonzalez, the more I think her entry is justified. Also, if Gonzalez's entry is AfD'd then by all rights David Hogg should also be AfD'd. Just because he's a guy doesn't mean his entry should have special treatment. -- Erika aka BrillLyle ( talk) 15:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hogg. Speaking up after a shooting does not confer instanotability. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting Keep. Sources given above and in the article clearly indicate significant coverage and WP:NTEMP applies. On the other hand, any claims of lasting notability are speculative and WP:CRYSTAL equally applies. At this point in time, however, all we can say is that there is no notability independent of the Stoneman shooting, and the content should be merged there.Since I wrote that, further coverage means that this person has entered the national political debate and independent notability is now established. While some reactions from right-wing politicians indicate a desire to wish these students into the cornfield, we follow the sources and there is clearly significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• What would you merge here that isn't already in the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• A merge is really more of a delete vote, for which I think there is no basis. And I think the basis for the merge is way off -- it's like saying Gonzalez is only notable in terms of a past shooting event, and what really is the case, is that she has become an active advocate for greater gun control, and is clearly notable in that regard.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 17:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• You don't become a renowned activist overnight, this could just as easily be her splash in the news as 15 minutes of fame to get her message out. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• "...fame to get her message out" sounds a bit disrespectful. It's been a few news cycles, and more than 15 minutes. Drmies ( talk) 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I mean no disrespect as a lot of other people jump at the chance to be in the spotlight for other reasons as well (just look at Chris Crocker). Some like Chris are a success, others not so much. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

If you mean no disrespect, why are you comparing her to that person? And calling him a success? So she's a failure? When you're in a hole, stop digging. Drmies ( talk) 18:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm saying that not everyone passes WP:LASTING just for being in the news. I also like to assume good faith when it comes to other's comments. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Really a poster child for BLP1E, were it not for her continued involvement in the protests that followed the event. 'Keep, certainly for now, and if this is to be merged the content should not be deleted. Drmies ( talk) 17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • BTW, Never Again MSD might be a better target for a merge, unless Mr. Icewhiz wants to nominate that al}}}so for deletion. Drmies ( talk) 17:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    • It already passed an AfD. Would be a good merge target for various BLP1E students who are not notable other than speaking up after the shooting. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Merge Agree with what some of the others have said above. Though I loved her speech, I would say merge until she does something else notable (not saying her actions haven't been, but I don't think they justify her a page, just yet). Noting her in, or giving her a section in the Never Again MSD page would probably suffice. However, I'm also perfectly fine if the vote goes to keep.-- QueerFilmNerd ( talk) 18:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Normally I would delete it per BLP1E, and merge it into Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. However, despite the massive coverage, editors at the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting have deleted most of the references to Gonzalez, and don't even quote her speech. (In violation of WP:WEIGHT, IMO.) So I would keep the Gonzalez page until her treatment at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is expanded to fairly represent its prominence in WP:RS. -- Nbauman ( talk) 20:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

A better target for merging would be Never Again MSD. Natureium ( talk) 20:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge or Delete. Not notable as a person, only for her involvement in the specific organization. Natureium ( talk) 20:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete or merge, does not matter. One Event notability, there's nothing to say about this person outside the context of the shooting. ValarianB ( talk) 20:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

By that rationale we should probably delete Chesley Sullenberger too, as "there's nothing to say about this person outside the context" of landing a plane on the Hudson river. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 21:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Please read WP:WAX. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I see a movement gathering momentum, international coverage, and celebrity endorsements and donations. Emma appears to be one of the people at the forefront. Also, article title should be Emma González as the current spelling ignores the accent. Enwebb ( talk) 22:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete BLP1E, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hogg. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

*Merge - This, like the other hastily created spin-offs, is textbook WP:BLP1E and too soon. I will never understand why it is so difficult to wait for the notability of a subject to be certain without their handy-dandy crystal ball. Sure, you read about her online a few days ago, but you are not doing her, or our readers, any favors by turning the encyclopedia into a second-rate news source on subjects who may only be notable for a brief time. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Given, she is still receiving coverage and this has the best chance of lasting significance, I will change to weak keep. Sadly, this will not be a decent encyclopedic article for a long time but that does not seem to concern many editors anymore. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 15:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete or merge - Notable in the context of a single event, i.e. BLP1E. Every speech she gives will be a result of being a shooting survivor, that is all she is in the eyes of the media. Not suitable for a standalone article. Mr rnddude ( talk) 01:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - notable, meets policy and intuition. History in the making, not a single event, an ongoing event. Verified twitter following of >275000, enough said, she’s officially notable. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. ev ( talk) 03:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Violates WP:NPOV. ImYourTurboLover ( talk) 04:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I think a delete vote here is non-neutral editing, perhaps even biased. The article itself appears neutral as all sources cited are considered reliable. ev ( talk) 04:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete or merge as above. WP:BLP1E, WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTALBALL. NZFC ^(talk) 04:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

She's not just a survivor but an influential activist.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

That source also mentions Cameron Kasky and Ryan Deitsch though. It isn't an indicator of lasting notability. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-notable individual. If the individual still is involved significantly on a national scale in a year with gun control, certainly we should reconsider. WP:CrystalBall prohibits us from looking into the future to determine future notability. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 13:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

More coverage here on what is clearly a national issue; the "one year later" requirement is nonsense.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, she was one of several students who spoke out during that planned event. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It's obvious that the articles about David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez, and Never Again MSD are trying to leverage Wikipedia's high visibility to promote them rather than including whatever information about them in the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article their actual notability, such as it is, would justify, and perhaps creating pages with those names to redirect to the main shooting article. I'm frankly disgusted by this. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. – Athaenara ✉ 18:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  Whoa. How about assuming good faith? I created one of those articles because it is a highly notable subject, not because I was trying to promote anything. - Mr X 🖋 18:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree. Creating all of these articles are trying to push a platform for high school students. Natureium ( talk) 20:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

That's an essay, not a policy. If the article is neutral, the subject is notable and the sources are excellent, then it's perfectly fine if a Wikipedia article happens to tell the world about a noble cause. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 21:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Do we have articles countering such arguments as might be found in articles such as David Hogg (activist), Emma Gonzalez, and Never Again MSD? I was able to find School shooting#Armed classrooms. Are there others? Bus stop ( talk) 23:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This seems like a big WP:TOOSOON issue and feels like it's pushing too hard in one direction. While I applaud her efforts, I don't think merging would be beneficial. PureRED | talk to me | 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge. After reviewing the article again and the Never Again MSD entry, I think this would be appropriate for a merger. 14:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. While article could use work, does it violate the listed policies? No. Q ^{T C} 19:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment While not official policy, consider that this article is getting 5000 pageviews per day.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• That is not anything to consider. This is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• TheGracefulSlick—you posted twice—at 13:53, 18 February and then at 01:38, 22 February. Bus stop ( talk) 01:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Just to clarify, what Bus stop means is that you have !voted twice. Please strike one. Mr rnddude ( talk) 02:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Pageviews is an excellent indicator of subject notability. That should go without saying.- Mr X 🖋 12:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Prakash Varrier got over 1 million views last week and was deleted, I don't think pageview-based arguments will carry any weight. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep We have a fundamental choice to make here (I arrived on this page from Google. I was looking for reliable info about this person and was happily surprised that Wikipedia had an article about her). We delete this article and let Everipedia take the lead, and be what Wikipedia used to be at the peak of its success. Or we keep this article and let this article grow (by following our quality standards when it goes to referencing and writing, obviously). -- Deansfa ( talk) 03:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep After appearances at the CNN town hall as well as her iconic speech, I feel like she has wide notability. The lorax ( talk) 04:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• I'm sorry but the wording "iconic speech" is a textbook example of WP:PEACOCK. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep She has national notability as one of the leaders of a national movement that is building behind the Parkland survivor adolescents. Definitely notable and ongoing. As opposed to posthumous pages of the victims (ex: Peter Wang (cadet)), her story is also just starting. She's only going to become more notable as this movement progresses. Gwenhope ( talk) 05:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep—judging by how much striking out is done on this page I'd say this is a borderline case. I'm concerned about giving favored treatment for one side of an argument based on sentiments in the wake of sorrow over the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School. But there is inarguably a groundswell of support for one side in what I personally feel remains a complex issue with solutions that do not derive from only one side in this American debate. An article on this individual is only fitting because she has emerged as a spokesperson, one of many, for a side in that debate. Bus stop ( talk) 06:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

It's not like the *&#*&*$&*$&#*$ fuzzy teddy-bears Wayne LaPierre and Dana Loesch do not have pages. WP:otherthings, I know, but wth. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 23:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I'd say that she has not emerged as an individual more so than any of the other students involved in Never Again MSD. As a collective, they are notable, so they can and should be covered collectively in that article. But at this time I continue to view individual pages as redundant. Why don't we have an article for Cameron Kasky, for example? He made just as big a splash with his questions toward Rubio at the CNN event, and he is by most reports the person who started the group in the first place. If in a few months Emma and David really do distinguish themselves above and beyond their involvement in the larger group, then we can write them their own articles then. PrimaPrime ( talk) 21:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

This is a raw issue and we should be conciliatory. It is a borderline case. Should she have an article or should she not have an article? It is not an utterly invalid argument that her recent activities warrant the existence of an article on this person. I think this question can be revisited at a later time. But for now I think it is constructive to let the article grow on its own. I don't see the important need to place this material within the context of the Never Again MSD article or the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article. Bus stop ( talk) 01:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Too early to know if this article should be deleted. If it is true that Gonzalez will fade from media and public attention after several news cycles, then let those several news cycles elapse and then delete or merge if that prediction proves out. EricTN ( talk) 06:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep For the same reasons I listed on David Hogg's deletion entry. CloudKade11 ( talk) 09:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep meets WP:SIGCOV per WP:HEY. González's actions in the last week and the resulting publicity and reporting support, in my opinion, that this is not WP:BLP1E. I would also support moving page to Emma González. Many sources are now including her surname with an accent and she uses it herself on her twitter account. Thsmi002 ( talk) 12:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• There is a difference between passing mentions though and WP:DEPTH. So we know that she gave a speech in regards to the event along with other survivors, and we know that she spoke at the CNN town hall along with other survivors. All of this seems like it is in the context of the event which is why a merge to Never Again MSD would make more sense. If she emerges from that movement as a leader then that would be different context. As far as I can see she has not been singled out by sources for anything other than this one event. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:HEY - TNT ^❤ 20:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep: This is a matter of historical importance (see: the number of companies that have stopped supporting the NRA due to her, and the other activists', efforts). I would say she is relevant enough. ( LahmacunKebab ( talk) 23:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)) reply
• Keep per WP:HEY. If her attention fades, possibly merge with Never Again MSD... but I really think keep right now. ohmyerica ( talk) 00:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep a founder and spokesperson for a multimillion dollar celebrity funded advocacy group. I was looking over her article just as Emma came on CNN for a full interview tonight. I'd love to see all these delete 1E voters show up next time someone nominates a pagaent winner page for deletion. Legacypac ( talk) 06:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep (change from "merge") -- at this point, the subject meets WP:ENT of sorts: 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. With 450K Twitter followers, she has only 100K less than NRA and appears to be on track to surpass it. K.e.coffman ( talk) 09:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep As other people have said, BLP1E is being misinterpreted It has three criteria, and, if they aren't all met, BLP1E doesn't apply.

  A recent phenomenon I've noticed is that a lot of young women, who measure up to GNG, are nevertheless facing strong deletion pressure. Can we be fair, and use the same GNG for young women as we do for everyone else? Geo Swan ( talk) 03:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I noticed that as well. The standard being applied by those arguing against is stratospheric. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 10:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Bit of a problem with your theory Geo Swan. Here, have a spanner in your works: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wang (cadet). Male, BLP1E, very strong deletion pressure, facing even harsher scrutiny than this article here. Better luck next time. Mr rnddude ( talk) 10:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

If at all we have a number of editors who chip with retention !votes on female subjects. In this case, two male students have been nominated as well. They are all in WP:ONEEVENT realm, and probably won't remain in the public eye after the news coverage of this event dies down - as all coverage dies down. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep per reasons also expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hogg. Subject has significant media coverage (as of this writing, there are 26 inline cites under "References") and more than meets the standard for inclusion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 10:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Roman Spinner and others. She has become a figurehead of a movement that is not going away, and a new cultural icon. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 11:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is a very relevant article on a student who started an anti-gun-deaths organization and is being covered by many news media. Deleting the article doesn't help potential readers very much. WP:BLP1E would not apply here because she is likely to have continued notability as the leader of a high visibility organization. epicgenius ( talk) 15:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Sufficient sourcing for a GNG pass, a good deal of which deals very extensively not with content of a single speech but with substantial coverage of the subject herself. BLP-1E is for lottery winners and people that discover giant buffalo skulls while hiking, not for public figures. Carrite ( talk) 18:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per most of the reasoning stated above. Isseubnida ( talk) 19:35, 25 February 2018 (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.