Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Simpson (world's heaviest woman to give birth)


 * 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. While BLP1E may not technically apply, since she is marginally notable for both her website and giving birth, it seems to be in the spirit of BLP1E if not the letter. It appears that consensus is in favor of deletion on BLP grounds. The Wordsmith Communicate 16:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Donna Simpson (world's heaviest woman to give birth)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article fails both the letter and the spirit of WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid encyclopedia and this woman's notability is transitory.  Them From  Space  01:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete--WP is not for single events or for 'news'. Dr Aaij (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 01:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a category for people who hold world records. Also, there are lots of articles about super heavy people. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - she is not a Guinness World Record Holder. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was outdated, I fixed it. She is now, in fact, a Guiness World Record holder. See newer news article.  D r e a m Focus  11:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT, which should exist if it doesn't. Thanks for the laugh, Grundle.  And it does exist! PhGustaf (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:BLP1E - people notable only in the context of one event are not notable, particularly where the person otherwise remains of low profile, and particularly where the event is transitory and has no ongoing consequences or impact. Also per WP:NOTNEWS.  I am aware that Wikipedia has other articles on record holders; per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the existence of other articles has no relevance to whether the present article should be kept or deleted.. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep She broke a record and is trying to brake another. Rodrigozanatta (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have to say, I don't think "she broke a record" is helpful. I am, as I type this, breaking the world record for most characters typed by a person with the screen name DustFormsWords in reply to a person with the screen name Rodrigozanatta on Wikipedia, and I have hopes to break similar records in the future.  It doesn't entitle me to an article.  What's relevant in establishing notability is Wikipedia policy, and the relevant ones here as far as I can see are WP:N, WP:BLP1E, and WP:NOTNEWS.  Would you care to comment on how this article does or does not conform to those policies? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dust, I think you did a great job breaking that record, and I want you to know that I'm on your side in your future efforts. You will go far! Dr Aaij (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - she is not a Guinness World Record Holder. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

****Comment I broke a record while cleaning the basement. It was an old 78 rpm record made by Louis Armstrong. Should I get a Wikipedia article? Edison (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, good example of a living person known for doing just one thing. Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BLP1E, no matter how weighty that single event was. Ray  Talk 06:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP - she is a guinness world record holder. as long as she holds the record, i would think she warrants a page of her own. if this is the only thing she ever achieves, add her page and any pertinent information to the fattest woman to give birth page...  or whatever else links to it...  i often use wikipedia to double-check news stories. so at this point, the page is useful.  as i said, if she achieves nothing else, and someone surpasses her, link to a larger, more relevant entry. -  XKGBX
 * I'd strongly recommend you don't use Wikipedia to check news stories, for exactly this reason. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news site, record book, directory, or any of a range of other things.  We don't decide whether things get a page by whether they're "useful"; we decide them on the basis of policy agreed to by the editing community, and as far as I'm aware the relevant policies here are WP:N, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS.  If you don't agree with those policies you are welcome to go to the relevant pages and argue they should be changed, but that's not something that it's usually effective to do through a deletion debate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - she is not a Guinness World Record Holder. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * She is now. One of the news articles mentions she has been awarded it now.   D r e a m Focus  11:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, famous for one event only. J I P  | Talk 07:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, and serves no useful contribution to society (and by extension, Wikipedia). PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most Wikipedia articles don't serve any useful contribution to society. That is not a valid reason to delete.   D r e a m Focus  11:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The delete votes are unduly swayed by this being a recent press story, and because its about someone who is super fat trying to be even more fat.  Maybe she's not as famous yet as Robert Earl Hughes, but the she has been the subject of significant press coverage and has a world record.  I am not aware of WP:BLP1E being construed to advocate for the deletion of people known for holding a single world record.--Milowent (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - she is not a Guinness World Record Holder. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete looks like a pretty much classic case of WP:BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per NOTNEWS and BLP1E. If she actually stays in the news for trying to gain the weight or actually becomes the fattest person, maybe, but until then, I don't see how she meets the standard.  MBisanz  talk 14:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, she's "already in the Guinness Book of World Records for being the largest mom.". No one seems to be considering how BLP1E applies to world record holders (assuming the holder has press coverage), as we already have tons of articles on similar people, and they are not treated as BLP1Es. e.g., Jyoti Amge (shortest girl), Sandy Allen (tallest woman), Yao Defen (tallest woman since 2008), Jon Brower Minnoch (heaviest man), Mills Darden (heaviest man), Carol Yager (heavy woman), etc. (there are 100s).--Milowent (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you brough those articles to AfD there's a good chance I'd argue many should be deleted, but that's not the discussion we're having today. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, otherstuffexists weighs in my favor, i.e., "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." These other articles have lasted for many years without debate. Its not dispositive, but its worth considering.--Milowent (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "Tons of articles", now that's funny! As Milowent points out, "one event" wouldn't apply.  WP:NOTNEWS is always a judgment call, particularly since she made the news again only yesterday.  I guess that it's theoretically possible that we will never ever hear again about Donna Simpson after she's made national news on her sad quest to become the world's heaviest woman, that she will never be a guest on talk shows, morning news programs, or shows like Dateline or 20/20; and it's theoretically possible that she'll never be profiled in People, Us, the National Enquirer; and possible that she will never be mentioned by commentators on other programs; and it's theoretically possible that she'll never be referred to in the foreign press as an example of American excess, or that she'll never be mentioned in books.  It's theoretically possible that she will never be seen or heard from again, but highly unlikely.  Not everything that makes news is barred by WP:NOTNEWS.  Mandsford (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Perfect WP:BLP1E, and lacking significant coverage to overrule that.  Grsz 11  14:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As others have said, there's a chance that she will become notable in the future. At this point though, she still falls under WP:BLP1E. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. One news story does not notability make. Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a news item / single event. Note to all those claiming notability by being a Guinness World Record Holder,  she is not a Guinness World Record Holder.  As per this article in the NY Post, she has submitted paperwork to Guiness to have her named as "biggest to give birth and heaviest living woman."  There is currently no category for biggest birth mom. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that, as other reliable sources have claimed (apparently wrongly) that "Simpson is already in the Guinness Book of World Records for being the largest mom."--Milowent (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect this got picked up off newswire services with little additional fact checking going on in the story. What really surprises me is that the correction came from the NY Post, which in its current incarnation is not exactly a bastion of fact checking. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I noted that as well. If the National Enquirer can do it, I guess the NYPost can too.--Milowent (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep Some may argue that Donna Simpson's ambition to becom the world's fatest women is esoteric and attention seeking akin to that of a tabloid. However, who are we to decide what merits a valid ambition over another? If she is 'in actuality' a record holder, that is an absolute extreme of the human race (obtained by only one), this is what record holders do, they present that line which seperates reality from fantasy (and we can learn from such). and if a world record should remain un-apealing to the masses, that is only a reflection of our psychology not an absolute truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.34.186 (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Newer news articles have updated information, she in fact has now achieved that World Record.  D r e a m Focus  11:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another textbook case of BLP1E; a flash-in-the-pan non-celebrity trying to drum up publicity for her fetish pay site. Fran Rogers❇ 17:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Philosophical speculation as to the nature of truth is great, but the place for it is in policy review. Notability isn't judged by reference to the line that separates reality from fantasy or reflections of our psychology, it's judged by the community-agreed policy on general notability, and the supporting policies which include WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E.  If you could address your comments to (a) what you believe the relevant Wikipedia policies are for this article, and (b) whether or not this article meets them, it would help us better understand your position. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Mr. IP editor makes a valid point despite not being couched in WP:isms. Donna is headed to the dustbin, it appears, but Mr. IP seems to be suggesting that there is a value judgment here informing the delete votes.--Milowent (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a fair interpretation of the comment, I guess. I'd point out though that all but two of the Delete votes have made a clear reference to policy (and one of those that didn't, PhGustaf, was being humorous), while none of the Keep votes except yourself (Milowent) and Mandsford have explained how policy might support a keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In close cases, what policy means often comes down to whatever 10 random keeps and deletes say. (An example I noted offwiki:).--Milowent (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I follow your point in principle - that sometimes AfDs have the wrong outcome - but not in practice. Your example is very clearly a delete case per WP:EVENT.  Three of the four keep votes are bogus, and and I can only assume the closing admin noted that when he rightfully closed it as delete.  In that particular case the system worked. (I'm actually interested in this dicussion but it will probably be increasingly less and less relevant to the AfD at hand.  Would you like to continue it on my talk page?) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure.--Milowent (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (Off-topic discussion continues at User talk:DustFormsWords.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep - her pursuit of 1000 lbs has her in the news often enough to make her a significant person and to warrant inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.249.213 (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Objects of lurid fascination may be notable enough for an article, if the fascination is lasting. In this case, we have a flurry of coverage in the space of a few weeks, which is not an indication of any long-term interest. --RL0919 (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep- The way I see BLP1E is that you have to distinguish (at least to some extent) between people that the event merely happens to, and people who bring it about through their own actions. Let's say I make the news for a long period of time because my house gets blown up. If it was blown up through no fault or action of my own then, even though the event may be deemed to be worth an article, I would not. But if I am responsible for blowing my own house up either on purpose or through horrendous stupidity, then the event would best be covered as an article on me. Now, since Donna Simpson is deliberately trying to bulk up to gain some kind of (IMO repulsive) world record, I don't feel BLP1E should be the deciding factor. That leaves the question of whether all this news coverage is enough to warrant an article. In my opinion, just barely. Reyk  YO!  02:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I refer you to this passage of WP:BLP1E: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." You also need to take into account that notability is not temporary.  "It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E). For example, routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article."  Critical factors are whether the event the person is famous for had national impact or ongoing consequences, and whether or not the person is likely to remain of otherwise low profile. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How can you say little Donna is low-profile?--Milowent (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as others have noted, per WP:ONEEVENT. Tarc (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP1E, notability, what ^ said. Q  T C 04:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for so many reasons I can't even list them. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is outdated. She has been given the Guinness award, and having a notable award, makes you notable.  Its a notable accomplishment, being the fattest woman to ever give birth.  The second reference in the article has a news article that says this:
 * "Simpson is already in the Guinness Book of World Records for being the largest mom. It took 30 hospital staff to deliver her daughter in a high-risk cesarean in 2007. At the time she weighed about 530 pounds. (She has other children.)"

 D r e a m Focus  15:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Comment - The Guinness Book of World Records is a notable book of records but notability is not inherited. No sources have been provided demonstrating that the particular awards won by Ms Simpson are notable.  Can anyone point to a critical analysis of these awards, or discussion of their history and pedigree, or speculation as to who will be the next record-holder? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Enough said. Pmlineditor   ∞  16:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Pmlineditor  Chzz  ►  16:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per most of the above. Ooh Bunnies! Not just any bunnies... 17:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates Wikipedia policy per most of the debate above. Carlosporras14 (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this article is a good read and a good point of what overeating can do!! This lady is more of a science project we will she what happens to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.135.251 (talk • contribs)
 * Its always interesting to me to see what articles will interest a casual IP user to contribute to a deletion discussion. Unfortunately their opinions seem to get discounted, even though they likely are far more representative of the average reader's view of what should on Wikipedia.--Milowent (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Carlosporras14 has only one edit ever outside this AFD. Be they registered or an IP address, it doesn't really matter, since registering is something anyone can do, it taking but a few seconds.  And AFD are decided by the context of the arguments, not in votes, so it doesn't really matter.   D r e a m Focus  11:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since when has Wikipedia become the NYT of reference: all the celebrity that's fit to print? An encyclopedia caters to one universal trait: curiosity. And Donna Simpson is very curious indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.16.200 (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that she is the heaviest woman in the world to give birth to a child is a fact worthy of encyclopedic reference, regardless of any rules or other thoughts on the subject. Those types of human limits are noteworthy knowledge, medically and scientifically speaking.  It is in the same realm as the shortest adult in the world, or the smallest human to give birth, etc.  It is much more important knowledge than the man with the longest fingernails, which has been in the Guiness Book of World Records since my 1972 edition.  Without such knowledge, people are hindered in their medical understandings and scientific knowledge of the human body and it's various limitations and capacities.  For example, supposing I was 250kg, and everyone told me that I was too fat to have a child: this kind of knowledge allows me to know that it has been done before, and it is possible.  It is not useless and irrelevant knowledge for an encyclopedia.  People that want this article removed have clouded judgment due to their hateful and spiteful resentment against this woman because she is fat.  It's that simple, regardless of the attorney-speak behind the rebuttals.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.188.15 (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2010 (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.