Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calpernia Addams (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. There is a clear consensus that this article does not constitute a WP:BLP violation, and that a subject's bare dislike for an article does not, by itself, establish grounds for deletion. Only one established user apart from the nominator has supported deletion -- however, I find his argument to be unpersuasive, since the deletion of an article per WP:IAR would, if permissible at all, at the very least require a consensus to establish that the action would genuinely "[improve] or [maintain] Wikipedia". Whatever level of support would actually be required to delete an article compliant with the letter and spirit of our policies and guidelines is clearly not present here. One other established user has supported the redirection of the article; however, that is not a matter to be resolved here, in the absence of a clearly articulated consensus for the action, since it would not involve an administrative deletion. John254 00:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Calpernia Addams
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Completing an incomplete nomination - presumably the nominator wants the article deleted for the same reasons she nominated it the first time Otto4711 (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned before, I fundamentally disagree with Wikipedia as a concept and strongly dislike having an aggregation of materials about me maintained here. I'm aware that this is unimportant to Wikipedia, so I will attempt, under duress, to work within Wikipedia's own established guidelines. The biographical article about me is harmful to me emotionally and professionally, and I would like for it to be removed from Wikipedia altogether. Barring that, I would like for the article to be stripped of all but the most essential content to whatever Wikipedia considers to be my encyclopedic value. Considering that my career as a public figure up to this point has occurred within the boundaries of local theater, niche cable reality television and small film/tv roles, I assume my major notability for this site continues to be the fact that I was dating PFC Barry Winchell at the time of his murder over nine years ago, which was covered in several national news outlets at the time. If Barry Winchell had not been murdered and I actually wanted to create a page about myself as a local theater actress and reality show participant, I have no doubt that it would be removed.

How is this article hurtful to me emotionally? This article appears in the first page of search results for my name, which elevates it to a major source of information for anyone curious about me in this current age of near constant internet connectedness. The major impression a reader is left with by this article is that I am a tragic survivor of the murder of a loved one. Nine years after the event, moving on is still a daily struggle. While I do memorialize Barry on my own personal website, which I have every right to do, the story is contextualized by all the countless things I've done up to the present day. I specifically ask writers covering my entertainment career to refrain from asking me about Barry's murder, but you will still find it mentioned in most every piece of writing, often with Wikipedia as a reference. I still get approached on the street, at events and through countless emails every month from people expressing sympathy for his murder, these nine years later. I appreciate their empathy, but I desperately long to move forward from the event, and many people cite having found me or "my story" from the Wikipedia article. What they consider "my story" is the biased view of me on Wikipedia as the victim of a tragedy, rather than the full story of me as a lifelong entertainer, comedic performer and musician. Although several magazines focused on me from a "human interest" angle due to the sensationalist value of my transsexual status, in reality I was in a different city the night Barry was murdered and barely knew the killers. This article only serves to perpetuate the perception of me as a victim, nine years after the murder took place. The real historical record should be maintained in Barry Winchell's article, with me as a footnote at best.

How is this article hurtful to me professionally? The article's slant paints me almost entirely as a victim of tragedy who began a career in entertainment via the aftermath of the murder. As written in the article here, I appear to have struck up a mercenary interest in the spotlight ex nihlo after his death. In a grasping-at-straws move to salvage this situation, I recently attempted to add details showing that I have always been an actor and entertainer, since childhood, but this edit was immediately removed, further souring me on Wikipedia. The only way this article could contextualize my interest in the performing arts would be to include information about my lifelong history as a performer, which in itself is not notable. At this point, increasing the size and depth of my already offensive article is not desirable to me. The best course of action would be to remove the article, and redirect it to Barry Winchell.

Wikipedia's own policies on biographies of living persons at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP encourage "Presumption in favor of privacy", and say that "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care." I especially encourage you to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ONEEVENT regarding people notable for one event. While I am certainly visible in the GLBT community (which only comprises a disputable 10% of the general population), even in that community I am not a major figure and am not recognizable to many GLBT people.

Further, much of the material in my article is sourced from a podcast called "Gay Pimpin' with Jonny McGovern". A quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP :"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." My attempt to do so was reverted three times yesterday. The vehemence with which my article is watched and preserved, despite limited relevance to much of anything other than a nine year old New York Times article and six year old cable movie, both of which would be better covered in Barry Winchell, leads me to suspect that I am being specifically singled out and harassed for some reason.

I loved Barry very much, and I continue to be haunted by his murder and the aftermath even today. Wikipedia's maintenance of an article immortalizing me as a victim with no other context as to what I am as a person is very, very hurtful. Even this publicly available writing may be used some day to ridicule or hurt me, but I feel I have no choice other than to try.

So, now that I have yet again been forced to publicly play out my personal emotional and professional difficulties stemming from Wikipedia's article forever painting me as a tragic widow though abuse of their massive web penetration and juggernaut system of operation, I ask again to be removed and redirected to Barry Winchell's article, where the real story lies. While each editor bent on maintaining this negative portrayal of me may turn off his or her laptop and go have a mocchachino at the campus coffee shop, I will return to answering my endless streams of emails that begin, "I was unaware of your story until I searched your name on Wikipedia, what was that like?..." or "I was unaware of your story until I searched your name on Wikipedia, you are just trying to get famous off the murder of your boyfriend..." Calperniaaddams (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - while the subject is distressed at having an article about herself on Wikipedia, she is clearly notable under our guidelines and the article does not impinge WP:BLP or any other policy or guideline. Nothing has changed since the last nomination. If anything, the subject has become more notable for having appeared in the reality dating series Transamerican Love Story. Additionally, the subject maintains this same material on her own promotional website. No grounds for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There's non-trivial coverage of this person in reliable sources, particularly the NY Times. Calperniaaddams, you're getting a poor response, partly because your making overly broad complaints, and trying to blank everything.  I don't see any malicious attempt by people to portray you negatively.  You should go to the article talk page, and explain specifically what items you contest, and what you think is unfairly negative.  I think this AFD is rather redundant and pointless, but hopefully, it draws attention, and more editors can watch this article, and have some input as to what's appropriate and what's not. --Rob (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - before the material that I added was removed, the article was split approximately 50/50 between information about Ms. Addams and PFC Winchell's relationship and his murder and information about Ms. Addams' childhood, performing career and military service. I do not see how this can reasonably be construed as an attempt to paint Ms. Addams as nothing other than a victim. I fail to see how any of the material in the article is contentious per WP:BLP or WP:RS since it is information that Ms. Addams make readily available on her personal website. Ms. Addams does not seem to understand Wikipedia's biography notability guidelines. If she were the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources based on her work in local theatre and appearing on reality TV, then she would still pass WP:BIO even in the absence of Winchell's murder. Yes, Ms. Addams is in part notable because of her association with Winchell and his death, but she is also notable as a subject of and consultant to an award-winning film based on her life with Winchell, as an advocate for LGBT rights, as the star of Transamerican Love Story, as a performer in The Vagina Monologues and as a featured subject of the documentary Beautiful Daughters. Many of these things in and of themselves would be sufficient to pass WP:BIO; combined and notability is assured.
 * It is truly horrifying that anyone would be so crass as to say that you are exploiting Winchell's death to build a career and it is unfortunate that they are doing so based on reading your Wikipedia article. However, in a Google search it is your own website that returns as the first hit; Wikipedia is third. If your Wikipedia article vanished today, there is nothing stopping those very same people from reading the very same information on your own site and make the very same comments. Otto4711 (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * comment -  Hey, you look beautiful ! How about you emphasize on your current career by changing your picture?

This article won't go away anytime soon given the sources and media attention and you know what... take it as a chance! rather than pulling hairs about people who only see you as the victim of a crime.

I readded the info about your career as ent and musician, as it's just fair to give you a hand (and maybe some time for sources) here. People look at you, now YOU can influence how they perceive you. I removed that one quote of yours to not let the article wallow in self-pity. It doesn't need to be there. It's enough to link it. This is all history, your time is now! I also removed the birth date as IMDb is not considered a reliable source and it should be up to you whether or not you release such data. Don't be afraid that your birth name or private medical data gets exposed (there were some really creepy comments on the discussion page). I will put this one on my watchlist. If you want the article's discussion page or history wiped, I'm sure some wiki admin will help you! You can always send in an OTRS ticket to identify yourself, should some one question your welcomed additions to the article. xo 3vil-Lyn (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC) title="it's nice to be important but it's more important to be nice!">♫
 * Keep the existence of this article doesn't violate BLP. Subject is more than marginally notable.  Claims made in the article are not defamatory and are cited by reliable sources (the discussion at RS/N about the podcast notwithstanding). Protonk (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * keep The article appears to be neutral. I think people should keep an eye on it though. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Keep, obviously. There are no WP:BLP or WP:V issues that would possibly warrant deletion, and the subject, partly as a result of her own promotional efforts, is sufficiently notable. — Satori Son 14:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are no WP:BLP or WP:V issues as earlier noted. If something is a notable, and it is sourced, then it is included on Wikipedia. WP:BLP is already a policy treated with extreme care, but if an article does not violate it, the article stays. Period. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 12:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral but, isn't there an established procedure for subjects to request their articles deletion? Don't they need to verify that they are who they say they are to someone at the Foundation or something and go through those channels? I'm inclined to ask about the "one Event rule" as well as it looks to me like the subject's main source of notability is the dating thing (although if the impact of the whole thing can be shown through reliable 3rd party sources to have affected the US military on a signicant basis than I'm guessing that would override "one Event". Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC) Keep. I always try to the consider the opinions of the subject with respect to biographies of living persons, and I am willing to defer to them in a case of questionable notability. Ms. Addams, however, is notable in Wikipedia terms, and as mentioned above, would be notable even in the absence of the tragic circumstances of the Mr. Winchell's death. There comes a point at which a person's public notoriety is such that the article must remain even over the subject's wishes to the contrary, and I'm afraid it's my opinion that the subject is past that point. There are a number of experienced editors who have expressed interest in maintaining this article; I hope the nominator will find that it remains balanced in the future. In reference to the comment above, the nominator can see this this page if she wants to contact the office. In the absence of a clear libel/policy violation, however, I doubt they will overturn commuity consensus as evidenced by this Afd. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  13:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking that in cases like this isn't it best if the subject contact the office (even if it is just to have proof of identity). Otherwise, anyone can be anyone and say some of the same things that have come up here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject is obviously notable, and I refute the suggestion that the article serves to portray her as the "tragic survivor of the murder of a loved one". On the contrary, it reads like a neutral, unbiased, factual account of events that are public knowledge, and which have received coverage in reliable sources. PC78 (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Barry Winchell. Without the link to the killing of Winchell, her article would be deleted as quickly as those of numerous beauty queens, local theater talents, and persons with medical conditions. At present there is only one independent and reliable reference, "An Inconvenient Woman,(2005)" from the NY Times Sunday Magazine. There is a NY Times article about the killing of Mitchell, "Killer's Trial Shows Gay Soldier's Anguish(1999but it only makes passing reference to Addams. The "Gay pimpin'" podcast and the VDAY website do not constitute "reliable and independent sources" in my view. Per WP:BLP "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement." We have deleted numerous articles about living persons with more national press coverage, who were primarily known for one thing, such as Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke,  In some cases, such as  Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney, even the deletion debate has been "hidden from view for privacy reasons"  The fact that the subject of the article requests it be deleted gives additional weight to the need to delete or redirect it. WP:OTRS is another avenue by which a person may seek to have material removed from an article, or to have the article deleted. Edison (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to get all WP:WAX, but if Tiffany Pollard, who has done pretty much nothing but appear on reality dating shows, meets our notability guidelines, Calpernia Addams certainly does. While I continue to assert that the podcast and the VDAY site are reliable sources in this instance, the same information is available elsewhere. This cites Addams' appearance at the VDAY event. This and other sources (including an interview that I'm not locating at the moment verify her military service and her work as a consultant on an Oscar-nominated film, and so forth. There is plenty of information out there, much of it supplied by Addams herself, that show she has been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In all honestly, the claim is made in the New York Times, which is regarded to be a reliable source on Wikipedia. Personally i also think that, even if man strips the murder away from the article, it does leave enough notability to survive an AFD. Apart from that, would removing the article on basis of a request violate WP:NOTCENSORED? If the article was removed upon the basis of "objectionable content", Im afraid that this will create consensus which will allow removal of content by anyone on the basis that they don't like what is being written. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 17:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- appears to easily meet WP:BIO, and not just WP:BLP1E.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not in general in favor of these requests. But the obvious & I think genuine pathos expressed above convinces my to IAR. I'm not sure I ever agreed with Edison on one of these before. DGG (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete If the subject has clearly stated that the article is hurtful to her, and has given a very detailed statement as to how and why it is hurtful to her, then it IS hurtful to her, intended or not. Not understanding, and continuing to probe her as to why she should consider it hurtful, is dismissive. Preda1ien (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC).
 * — Preda1ien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note that you have not provided any rationale for deletion. If you want the article deleted then say why you think the article violates Wikipedia policy and why deletion is the appropriate fix for the problem. An article that meets Wikipedia policy does not need to be deleted. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in)  21:50, 10 August 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.