Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Loughren


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Amy Loughren

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Loughren is a low-profile individual who is notable for only one event, stopping serial killer Charles Cullen, per WP:BLP1E. Person does not have notability beyond this to warrant a standalone article. Person's background can be covered at Charles Cullen, which is the article that houses the complete background of which Cullen is the center. Any current coverage about Loughren is still rooted in her history of stopping Cullen. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, by that token, Charles Cullen is notable for only one thing: murdering a bunch of people. Please put that article up for deletion, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:1d00:4150:e13d:8a5:1564:77e (talk • contribs) 01:58, October 31, 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:PERP. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes, ONEEVENT, but subject is featured in a film where she's played by Jessica Chastain looking to add to her awards mantel. I'd say this BLP is solid enough (and at worse we're talking a redirect to The Good Nurse, not any kind of deletion or PERP redirect).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do not oppose covering Loughren in a broader article. The point is that per WP:BLP1E, a biography is not suitable. She is a low-profile individual who is only notable for stopping Cullen, and other details like her being a grandmother are indiscriminate in this scope. It's like creating biographies for police officers or Good Samaritans who put a stop to mass shootings, and the news reports about these low-profile individuals for a news cycle. The fact Chastain played her is straightforward and covered in one sentence and does not mean Loughren suddenly inherits her standalone notability from the actor's performance (which is of Loughren's only notable act, stopping Cullen). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that most police officers or good samaritans don't have films made about them. She is notable for the fact that her story has been made into a film. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The film is not biographical. It does not cover Loughren's life. It covers Loughren's sole notable deed. In the same sense, "films made about them" is fuzzy logic; the film made covered Loughren's notable deed, not her life or her larger story. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is still more than the average police officer or good samaritan, so my point remains that your comparison is not apt. And indeed, the title of the film refers to her. Yes it's an episode of her life, as many biopics are, but it is still notable. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep "notable for only one event" which is "stopping serial killer Charles Cullen". Yes, that's notable enough. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep With the release of the film there is increasing coverage specifically of Loughren and her life apart from the "one event". Lard Almighty (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and mention in Charles Cullen / The Good Nurse article. Subject is low profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.100.34 (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I think I would enjoy reading the articles about the "good samaritans who stopped mass killings." Also, would someone please direct me to the policy that says every detail, no matter how banal, of a murderer's life is interesting, but by no means would we ever want to study or even document the lives of people who rise to heroism?--Literaturegirl (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject of a book and a movie. WP:BLP1E#3 ("the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented") is not met, so BLP1E does not apply. pburka (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The film sounds biographical, according to Jessica Chastain in the AP, and this newly-created article can continue to be developed. Between the book, film, and documentary, (and a preview of scholarly journal I cannot access via GScholar), I agree WP:BLP1E#3 is not met, because her event is significant, her role in assisting law enforcement was substantial and well-documented, so merger into a biography of someone known primarily for a different event is not supported. Beccaynr (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BLP1E is explicit that it applies "when each of three conditions is met". Criteria 3 only applies when "the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" and in this case, Loughren's role was significant in pinning down the case and her actions are covered amply in reliable and verifiable sources about her. The notability standard is met and BLP1E does NOT apply. Alansohn (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep — She's been in the mainstream media since Cullen's arrest in 2003, again during the release of Charles Graeber's best-seller book in 2013, and now in 2022 is the principle character in a highly rated film. —  W ILD S TAR  TALK 20:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:BLP1E#3 ("If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.") is NOT met. Stopping a serial killer is a significant event. Being the one who was instrumental in his arrest and conviction (without her contribution, he would have likely gone free) makes her role substantial. Her role in that event being the subject of a film (and a possible documentary) is solid documentation. CD (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Charles Cullen. Everything in this article can be mentioned there. I'd like to add that the nomination actually overstates her notability despite arguing against it, if a recent interview with Loughren in the Grauniad is to be believed. Loughren didn't "stop Cullen" - he was caught by the hospital's computerised dispensing system, and then the police. The identity of the person at Somerset Medical Center who noticed the red flags in the dispensing system and called the police isn't known. Loughren didn't notice anything untoward while she was working with Cullen. Even after the police had been called she initially refused to believe the allegations until they showed her the evidence. The wiretap and partial confession was her sole contribution. AfD isn't a place to debate how many brownie points people get for assisting a police investigation, but while Loughren may be a major character in The Good Nurse, her contribution to the actual investigation, and by extension her notability, is very tenuous.
 * It appears that her role may have been rather overstated in a New York Post interview she gave nine years ago. --195.206.172.158 (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, can we now please, please have a discussion on whether Kim Kardashian's actual accomplishments make her worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Or is somebody going to tell me it's about the coverage? Damn, it's about the coverage, isn't it? Literaturegirl (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

KEEP - I came to Wikipedia specifically looking to find out about the true person portayed as hero of a best selling biography and now Netflix bio-pic. This “news” is almost 20 years old so the fact we’re talking about her twenty years on suggests she was a bit more than some Good Samaritan for a one off incident forgotten as soon as the news cycle moved on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.37.146.218 (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The coverage meets WP:GNG (and as Literaturegirl noted above, whether her role was "overstated" or not is irrelevant for WP:GNG). The real question is whether she's significant beyond WP:BLP1E standards, specifically criterial #3 (1 and 2 are clearly met—she's only covered in the context of a single event, and she has otherwise remained low-profile). To be honest I think this is more iffy than some others here do, mostly because I am not sure how broad "the event" is meant to be applied here—is it the whole crime or just the discovery, arrest, and sentencing the article subject was involved in? Either way, I'm still inclined to say that the event is significant (even if "the event" here is just understood to mean the discovery, arrest, and sentencing, and not the murders themselves), and her role seems to have been both substantial and well documented. I think this is a reasonable article that merits inclusion. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 00:26, 6 November 2022 (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.