Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliza Shvarts


 * 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. WP:BLP1E is pretty clear on this, and no arguments have been put forward that suggest Ms Schvarts has any other accomplishments than this one event. Arguments consisting of "article is well-referenced" or (worse) "keep because individual exists" are particularly weak. Neıl ☎  12:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Aliza Shvarts

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject is not sufficiently notable; she's enjoying her "15 minutes" for a story about a college art project (ostensibly she deliberately got pregnant and had abortions; it was a hoax). I don't think this meets the stadard of WP:NOTE. -- Narsil (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is POV, but she is already notable now (major news coverage relating specifically to her). Whether or not she is notable 1 year from now is unknowable and unimportant. Protonk (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I created this article less than four hours ago. The subject has received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources including, but not limited to The Washington Post, Daily Telegraph, National Post, Chicago Tribune, Chronicle of Higher Education, FOXNews and United Press. Major developments in the story (hoax?) are still breaking and information on the individual concerned has yet to appear. I strongly recommend we give an article a chance and recommend that the nominator withdraw. Skomorokh  00:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is well-referenced, in contrast to the stuff on the web.  Andrew73 (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Shvart's publicity may have come for an odd/unusual reason but keeping this article justifies an individual entry for anyone that momentarily is mentioned in multiple news outlets for doing something controversial/important.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.204.35 (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:PERNOM your comment does not carry much weight as the nom has not made any argument. The subject clearly meets the basic criteria of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, so in order for anyone to take the delete arguments seriously, you will need to make some sort of exceptional claim. Skomorokh  01:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The nom argument is clearly that this is a well publicized hoax that does not meet notability standards.  This entry justifies an entry for every college prank that appeared in a newspaper.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.204.35 (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What this entry justifies is entirely irrelevant. You cite notability standards, but our general notability guideline states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Maybe I am missing something, but this subject (including the hoax the later-revealed nature of the art project) clearly meets this general formulation. There are other formulations of notability which might support this articles deletion, but no-one here has cited them. Skomorokh  01:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think WAX applies here, the argument is not that we have deleted other similar articles in the past, instead the argument is that wikipedia is not meant to be a clearing house for publicizing college pranks.
 * Comment STOP throwing the word hoax around. Let's be VERY clear.  A hoax in this context refers to the article itself unless we specifically say it doesn't.  In this case, what we mean to say is that the actions of the subject of the article weren't what was originally reported to be the case.  However, as she has achieved notability for the report project and now (possibly) discovery of the truth, this article should stay.  If the facts bear out that this was a hoax, then the page can be updated to reflect that. Protonk (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment My apologies for using the word "hoax"--I can see how it could be misconstrued! Yes, I did not mean to imply that the article was a hoax--I only meant that the article is about a woman whose only claim to notability is that she (seemingly) perpetrated a hoax. As to whether she actually is sufficiently notable--well, yes, my argument (perhaps made poorly) was that I don't consider a single college art project, with a flurry of day-of articles, to be sufficiently notable to get the artist a bio page. But I recognize that it's a judgement call. I'll be perfectly happy to defer to the Wiki.Consensus, whatever it happens to be. (It might be worth waiting until tomorrow to see if the attention persists at all.) Also, I think it's fair to say that the notoriety is about the art project itself, and about Ms. Shvarts only as the perpetrator of it--so perhaps the "notable" article should be about her project, and Aliza Shvarts should redirect there? -- Narsil (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I didn't mean to imply that you meant to assert that the article was a hoax.  Please accept my apologies if I sounded that way.  What I mean is that the word (and words like it) has power all by itself and we should be careful using it. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. We all get our 15 minutes, but that doesn't entitle us to Wikipedia articles. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * whew Thanks--I knew there was a policy that applied, but I couldn't find it. Yes, what he said, WP:BLP1E. -- Narsil (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; The individual clearly exists. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete subject is non-notable. A minor high school prank which after a very short news cycle, won't even be a useful memory. An individual's mere existence is also not a criteria for a WP article. I exist and don't merit one  . .  as yet.  EraserGirl (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is and yes, you do. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment My last on this one, I promise, my voice is probably in this one too much (though I have nothing to do with the article per se). I don't think that BLP1E means that articles like this should not exist. I feel it means that articles where the person is tangent to the act shouldn't exist.  If the article was about a yale student who was the victim of a crime or was witness to some otherwise notable event, then the line "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted..." applies.  As written, the line doesn't apply if the verifiable and notable news coverage focuses on the person as the instigator of the event. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Yale University and add a small controversies section to that page. Artist not notable on her own. Spell4yr (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete  just because something is outrageous does not make it encyclopedic.--Docg 09:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But extensive coverage in reliable sources does make it notable, and we include articles on things which are notable. "Encyclopedic" is too vague a term to be helpful. WaltonOne 10:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As is "notable" - this is newspapers today, and probably chip paper tomorrow. No evidence (yet) of longer term significance, and we are not a newspaper.--Docg 13:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Either merge to Yale University or rename as an article on the controversy, depending on amount of material. The incident is notable and has received extensive news coverage, and should not be whitewashed; however, we also need to avoid pseudo-biographies as per WP:BLP1E (a policy which I don't agree with, but it is policy). WaltonOne 10:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keepgiven the usefulness of this for the anti-abortion movement, it seems just a matter of common sense to realize this will remain a matter of public attention. In this particular case the article being under her name is appropriate. DGG (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "just a matter of common sense to realize this will remain a matter of public attention" - isn't that crystalballery?--Docg 14:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This girl doesn't deserve a wikipedia page for something she made up.w0rd (talk) 09:38,, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: A clear failure on WP:BLP1E grounds ... and quite aside from anything else, speculating on the enduring notability of a news story one day old is crystal-ballery at its most speculative.   Ravenswing  14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: I hardly feel that a high school prank deserves an entry in an encyclopedia! Will we putting an article on the 13 year old German boy who was quoted in all the papers about Nasa being wrong over an asteriod hiting earth in 2029,Then was proved wrong!I think not-neither should we entertain this item in the Wikipedia.A hoax is just that a hoax.Hardly worth an entry.Rosenthalenglish (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * perhaps you should reread the sources. This is a BA thesis at Yale, with authoritative sourcing for validity.
 * By the way, there are some new developments, not yet added to the article. from the Chronicle:  I will admit they make it somewhat less notable.
 * for events that are recent, yes we have to predict on the basis of judgment what will remain important. Crystal Ball does not refer to how we judge articles, just to the content of articles. If the article said "this will have attention over the years" that sentence certainly should be removed from the article. But we here need to discuss whether the event will be remembered.-- We do not wait to cover things until they are  old, just until we can tell that they are notable.  DGG (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OSHII- IT'S NOT OVER YET GUYS! http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24528 - SHVARTS REFUTES YALE'S CLAIM THAT SHE DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING.
 * Delete, nn hoaxer. &mdash;BurnDownBabylon 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to 2008 Yale Undergraduate Senior Art Show, as that's really what's notable, and what the article's about. Usual stuff. Wily D  15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This person hardly merits a wikipedia entry. It may be shocking now, but is it really memorable? I say that the page should be taken down for a few months to a year & then judge whether she merits an entry. As it stands now, I truly fail to see what is really necessary to include here. If we are to include things such as this, why not also include other shocking acts or peoples that are routinely mentioned in the news or others who have done extreme art? She created something shocking & got mentioned in the news. Barring any other occurence such as an attempt at her life, her expulsion, or something similar, there is nothing that merits an entry. We may as well enter in the random performance of a streaker or cowtipper. There really seems to be no difference. (And if it matters, there is a video floating around the internet of Shvarts talking about how the entire thing truly was a hoax & how she fooled everyone & is continuing to do so to gain attention. If I can find it or get someone else to find it, I'll post it.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
 * I actually found a decent comparison to this young lady. About a year ago there was another art student who went around dressing roadkill in children's clothing to make a statement. While she gained a large amount of publicity & stayed in the media eye for a while, her actual relevance quickly faded after the controversey died down. I have a very strong feeling that after her art performance the controversey will die down. I wouldn't be surprised if she were to admit it was a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79


 * Keep this article. Keepscases (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or move somewhere perhaps. She's notable now, it's "crystalballery" to say she won't be at some point. If in a few months nobody cares, then we can delete the article. But right now she gets hundreds of news results and the incident seems to be continuing. --Rividian (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rividian. She's certainly notable right now. -ParkerHiggins  ( talk contribs ) 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per BLP1E and the article's a sort of advertising, gaining attention for someone whose whole notability is perhaps due to attempts to seek it. Merkin's mum 18:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Let's not confuse newsworthiness, which is fleeting, with notability, which is not. TJRC (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not merge to Yale University, which has had many more notable things happen in its 300-year history than this. I prefer keep over delete, but not strongly. Mangostar (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. I believe merging this or redirecting this article would be the best option. She however does not merit her own biographical page.User:Thegiantpaperpanda 8:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think that the subject may have become national news primarily due to the sensationalistic or insufficiently researched content of a college newspaper article. That does not seem like a good justification to have an encyclopedia article about her. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Or create an article for the event.  Not redirect to Yale.  As stated above, only Yale claimed this was a sham (in lieu of using the h-word).  Shvarts quickly rebutted, claiming she has several recordings of her activities as well as saved, frozen blood.  This seems to be a notable moment in activism, art, the abortion rights movement, and for the uproar it caused, which has been covered by (NY Times, US News and World Report, Slate, AP, FOX News, and a slew of other reliable secondary sources).  Perhaps instead, according to WP:BLP1E, an article for the event could be created with a redirect to it from here.  —Rhododendrites (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. She made it clear that she cannot prove she was ever pregnant, seems like that short circuits the significance of the performance.
 * I'd observe that the fact that she cannot prove her pregnancy is part of the point of the performance, yes? Something about ambiguity? 71.244.244.213 (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems more like a contrived justification that was created after the artist was caught in a lie ...
 * Oh, quite probably - but, bizarrely, it's a statement documented by sources in the article. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Move to 2008 Yale Undergraduate Senior Art Show. I'd like to add my voice to the people who are saying that this article (if not outright deleted), should be moved to mention only the actual art performance itself under the 2008 Yale Undergraduate Senior Art Show, as that is really the most applicable place for it to be. As it is right now, this article is serving as more of a advertisement than anything else. This person is not noteworth enough to deserve her own page. Merge it under the 2008 YUAS as a newsworthy mention. Other than this publicity stunt, she has done nothing else to merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with some of the other comments here. This "event" should be moved to the YUAS. As it stands, it is more of an advertisement than anything else and again she is only known for one stunt that cannot be proven either way. If she has a page anyone who pulls a stunt would be justified in doing so. The only reason hers got so much notoriety is because of the abortion aspect, which again is not proven in either case. Thus, it should not be added to any abortion entries. (Thegiantpaperpanda) 11:59 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Move per Tokyogirl79. It's obviously a notable event, but the individual isn't, so much. 71.244.244.213 (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The only part of the entire event that's notable is the initial Yale Daily article that mistakenly sensationalized the story. At best this should be merged with an article about menstrual blood art.
 * Strong keep, her art has a lot of coverage, making her notable. Saying this should be deleted is like claiming that a musician whose first single a number one across the world should be deleted as per WP:BLP1E. Blatant misrepresentation of Wikipedia policies. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Divinediscourse (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Lawrence Cohen  §  t / e  23:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as there are plenty of reliable secondary sources confirming her notability. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an article on a notable in-progress current event.  Shandamoon (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Observation: The subject has had other artwork displayed and exhibited. If we set this most recent whatever-it-is aside, would those other performances or exhibitions been sufficient to show notability? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Wait a month or two and see if this person is deserving of an article after the media furor is over. This AfD is premature. Oore (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the reactions she recieved within 2 days is enough to illustrate the polarized opinions on the subject. highly contraversial, the article is aligned with wikipedia's mission. Candymoan (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Many of those in favor of keeping this article are confusing notability (which is the criterion by which we determine whether to have an article) with newsworthiness (which is about how much attention the subject is getting, the existence of "polarized opinions," "controversy," "current event" etc.). TJRC (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's got the media enthralled with its twists and turns, will likely be as referenced in the future as the infamous elephant dung painting that was so loathed by Giuliani, and the artist probably has way more up her sleeve. Cjs2111 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (for now) but change its title. There is clearly not enough material there for it to be a biographical entry, and Aliza Shvarts does not seem notable enough to have such an entry anyway. However this particular "performance art" and the controversy it has generated appears to be notable and article worthy. Meowy 01:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the "event" is more notable than the person. She should not have a bio page as per WP:BLP1E. I think the "event" every right but this article as it stands is unnecessary.Thegiantpaperpanda (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep She has received notable media coverage due to her abortion artwork. It's not been confirmed whether or not it is a hoax. Notability does not expire. Whether anybody will remember her in a year or not is completely irrelevant. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - To say that this article violates WP:BLP1E is most likely true. To say that WP:IAR overrides WP:BLP1E is patently true. The topic of the article is currently receiving attention from numerous news sources, and has been the subject of lesser such attention repeatedly. The article meets the WP:5P, as well as WP:V,WP:NOTE, and WP:RS, as well as not violating any policies contained within WP:BLP (which both diminish the image of Wikipedia and open it to legal pursuit) While including it serves the encyclopedia no harm, excluding it certainly may. It's true, the argument is straight from the inclusionist playbook -- WP:NOHARM. But looking above, the comments for delete are also generally WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:NOTPAPER comes to mind, and I think the combination of that and all the previous random policy documents should illustrate that it's not sensical to delete a three day old verifiably sourced article on the basis of non-notability. Fuck, did I make any sense at all? WP:WOTTA. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I've contacted Shvarts in regard to whether or not she wants there to be an article. If she has no objections then presumably harm arguments won't have much water. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:N and WP:BLP1E. Article is about a notable event performed by Ms. Schvarts, not about Ms. Schvarts herself, although her name is the most appropriate title to use for the article.  Whether this deed was a "hoax" -- and nothing but gossipy opinion has so far suggested that it was -- is irrelevant, as it has stirred up national attention either way.--Father Goose (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to Shvarts affair and revise accordingly. Subject is not notable beyond the confines of the brouhaha raised by her "project". Groupthink (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to be about the affair rather than the person. The project and the things surrounding it are notable, and the article currently reflects that.  Might as well move it there rather than delete it all and start from scratch.  Celarnor Talk to me  05:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Rename to an article about the controversy, which is clearly notable. I'm indifferent about whether the article remains at Aliza Shvarts or at Aliza Schvarts art controversy or something like that, but either way the subject is worth having an article on. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Move per Groupthink. Grsz  talk  06:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." The policy is pretty clear.  APK  yada yada  12:27, 23 April 2008 (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.