Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Johnson (activist) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Many various opinions have been presented here. Early in the discussion, some users, and one user later on, stated that this is a WP:BIO1E situation, while others countered this, stating that the subject has received significant coverage over a sustained period of time. The latter notion was backed up with the provision of sources by a user in the discussion. Of note is that none of the users opining for deletion or merging per WP:BIO1E stated an actual, specific single event the subject is supposedly only known for, although it can be assumed that this notion is regarding the subject's employment or resignation from Planned Parenthood. Of importance is that the basis of WP:BIO1E is specifically about people notable for only one event, literally, a single event, but the subject has received ongoing coverage regarding several matters and events, rather than only one single event. The sources provided in the discussion report about several aspects of the subject, including Johnson's activities at speaking engagements, activism, some content about a book the subject authored, and the subject challenging Planned Parenthood's President, among others. As such, per the sources provided, the WP:BIO1E arguments are not congruent with the actual wording and intent of WP:BIO1E. These sources also served to counter the notion of WP:NOTNEWS advanced in the nomination, which is based upon Wikipedia avoiding original reporting and "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities," among other matters. A couple of users based deletion upon the notion that the article is promotional, but this notion did not gain traction in the form of a sufficient consensus herein to warrant deletion upon this view alone. Several users stated that the subject is notable as per meeting WP:GNG and as per the sources. The overall consensus herein, per the overall strengths of the arguments relative to guidelines and policies, is for the article to be retained. North America1000 11:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Abby Johnson (activist)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

With a few years' distance, we can see that this was a flash in the pan without the lasting persistence notability guidelines call for; doesn't seem to have been covered in reliable sources for more than a few weeks after the initial news story. Even her book a few years later seems to have failed to get her back into the public eye, attracting no notice I'm aware of. I considered recommending a merge to Planned Parenthood, but compare the encyclopedic content there to this trivial little story; it would be inappropriate. Johnson isn't notable, it turns out. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First AFD was withdrawn in response to overwhelming keepsentiment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge and redirect to Planned Parenthood per WP:BIO1E. Deletion and a redlink is just an invitation to re-create the article. The incident could be noted briefly in the main article or perhaps there is a spinoff article that lists similar events.  Montanabw (talk)  08:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:BIO1E is pretty clear, but I don't think she is notable enough to include in PP's article. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep She has gotten significant coverage all over the country over the years: 2016 (Ohio), 2016, 2013 (Texas), 2015 (Washington), 2012 (national), 2015 (Texas), 2016 (Chicago), 2011, 2011 (national), 2016 (national). --GRuban (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep She has gotten significant coverage in sources from many locations. This is over a sustained area and a sustained amount of time. The only justification for removing this article would be to give pro-life people who have sympathetic stories less attention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Big coverage, not clear if limited to one event. Millbug  talk 03:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The story's trivial, yes, but the subject worked for almost a decade on Planned Parenthood so she's more or less a big deal on both sides. Jebbiex : Talk  04:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see this as promotional for her current views.  DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- non-encyclopedic and promotional. Sources do not suggest lasting notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, GRuban has sucessfully demonstrated that she clearly meets the GNG. The article should be edited for neutrality, but it currently is not beyond saving.Tazerdadog (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources are there. Keep as per User:Jebbiex and others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep with kudos to User:GRuban for bringing sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment (unsure -- leaning weak delete) - There was the WP:BIO1E coverage, but I dispute that GRuban's sources are evidence of continued coverage (and that they're even reliable sources). They're all self-published (e.g. a reader blog hosted by the Houston Chronicle is not the Houston Chronicle), opinion columns, small local papers, biased publications which engage in pro-life activism, or some combination thereof. Whether it's enough to demonstrate that the subject has had lasting significance is a tough question. I would feel a lot more comfortable if we had a couple examples of mainstream coverage outside of opinion columns. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * wow. your comment made me go back to double check GRuman's sources, first one I clicked: 2016 (Chicago) is not "self-published"; it appears to be an an op-ed from the Chicago Sun-Times.  Although not news content, an op-ed can certainly be used to establish ongoing notability.   At that point, I decided to check for myself by running her through news google. The search:, like the Sun times op ed,  validates her as having a continuing public profile: there's a Daily Camera article covering a speech she gave: ; one in The Tidings (newspaper) here: that mentions her; a major story in the Christian Post, . In short, it is just as User:GRuban asserted,  ongoing coverage that validates notability.WP:SNOWBALL. Small town papers do count towards notability, albeit not the way a Washington Post article does.  But what is troubling here is your apparant dismissal of journalism in Christian press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're putting some words in my mouth here. Obviously the Chicago Sun-Times is not self-published; it's an opinion column written by Kathryn Jean Lopez. I said the sources fit into one or more of the categories I list -- self-published, local, biased, and/or opinion columns. I specifically pointed out the one that looked, on the surface, to be the Houston Chronicle but was in fact a reader blog (as far as self-published goes). Regardless, small town papers can count, but if we're talking about establishing ongoing coverage, then there needs to be more. Someone notable for one event can give a talk at a local venue, and their celebrity status from that one event will get them coverage in local papers. The bar is lower, which is why they count for less. Meh. "Apparent dismissal of journalism in Christian press" is quite an accusation based on a single !vote, especially since I've used/cited Christian/religious sources in other AfDs. I'll assume there's an "[on this issue]" in there, which would be more or less accurate. What I do dismiss (not quite dismiss, but I don't think they add very much) in looking for notability, are biased sources that overplay the importance of a subject when it fits in with a political aim. There are a whole lot of subjects that only get picked up by Breitbart, Daily Caller, National Review, Washington Times, Red State, Rush Limbaugh, etc. (or, on the other hand, Daily Kos, Mother Jones, Think Progress, Salon, etc.). The journalistic value of each varies significantly, of course, with e.g. Washington Times and Salon used frequently throughout Wikipedia. But for establishing the notability of, say, some flash in the pan critic of Donald Trump on one side, or of a pro-life activist, on the other, then the publications/agencies that routinely advocate for that particular position are not the kind of sources that show broad significance. I will say that I was wrong about the Daily Camera, which I mistook to be a college newspaper. I'll unbold my weak delete since I remain unsure, but I'd still want to see more good coverage before supporting (not that this thread appears to need another keep). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that I wrote "wow" because when I saw your name attacked to that post I thought I must have really blown it in evaluating this article. But your are correct, I did misread your comment to say that they were "all self-published;" but then clicked only 1 of the stories liked by Ruben  that made your comment appear so inaccurate that I took it for ill-intention.  For that I do apologize.  And further state that I recognized your name as an active editor without actual memory of your politics.  I next decided to run my own search, a simple news google, just to see if she is indeed still in fact being talked about.  It showed a lot of articles by some apparent abortion activist group that I skipped as I began to bring valid sources to the page.  I stopped part way down the first page (google organizes it roughly by date) when I found a  detailed, reported story ( April 2016)  in the Christian Post.  It is such a major paper, with highly professional editing and real journalists, that I stopped right there, since it completely disproves  Nom's assertions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Houston Chronicle 2015 is not a blog; neither is Washington Times 2015; Mother Jones 2016 (less in depth, but mentions she's an important part of Rubio's campaign, and MJ is the opposite of a pro-life publication); National Catholic Register 2013, Catholic News Agency 2016, and National Review 2011 clearly have a point of view but bias doesn't make them not Reliable sources. More importantly, look at the sheer number of them, and the years they span. She's clearly notable if so many have noted her for so many years. New York Times (2012) says she "has achieved rock-star status within the anti-abortion movement", and that's pretty clearly true.--GRuban (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Chronicle 2015 link got paywalled in the last week, but it's very real. Here is the Google cache which should be good for a few days, this is real coverage, not a one-line mention of her. --GRuban (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article needs some work, but subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Instaurare (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.