Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Unruh


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Heather Unruh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not meet notability thresholds, and appears to be notable because her son was allegedly victimized by Kevin Spacey. Even then, the alleged victim was her son, not her. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The article was created, by me 4 days ago, before she mentioned her son, though I did wonder who she was based on her criticism of Spacey and then thought she would make another good BLP to support the #1Day1Woman project (note that tweet did not mention Spacey, just an "award winning journalist"). There are sufficient sources in this stub to demonstrate her impact in the field of journalism. She has won several notable awards, in particular a "Grand Gracie" national award, and has been reported to have commanded a salary of $300,000 for her TV anchor role but with additional incomes made around $1m p.a. This is remarkably high for a journalist, and is actually a couple of times more than the Prime Minister of Britain makes. More sources and detail could be added, but even as a stub this is sufficient to avoid deletion and meet WP:JOURNALIST. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You mentioned money. I have to ask if we are Wikipedia or if we are Forbes magazine? I don’t think anyone can “buy” their way to Wikipedia by earning enough money. Also, she may be known to some, but to others around the country and world, her name is about as well known as Joe Schmoe. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 18:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, amongst other things I mentioned money, because it's an unusually high salary for a journalist, but not someone who is a celebrity figure within TV journalism. No Wikipedia is not Forbes, but every CEO for a Forbes 500 company should have an article. No, Unruh has not attempted to buy her way on to Wikipedia, I doubt she gives a fig either way. Yes her name is now known around the world, because of the Spacey allegation, but of itself, that's not a reason to delete this article. --Fæ (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just want to clarify. I am not accusing Unruh of buying her way onto Wikipedia. I am merely saying if we make an article simply because someone earns above a certain threshold of money, that someone effectively "bought" their way onto Wikipedia. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 20:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * just a comment. In many areas, value affects cost, such as salary.  Unruh would not be able to command the salary she does if tv news organizations didn’t feel she was worth the money.  Based on that point alone, she is notable undefined
 * Comment: looking over WP:JOURNALIST, I found the thresholds:

I would argue that she has not met threshold 1. People have heard of Sue Simmons, Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings. Do many, many people know of a Heather Unruh? As for thresholds 2 and 3, I don't think she has met that, by any stretch. Threshold 4, her accusations re Kevin Spacey came really, really late in the timeline, well after Anthony Rapp and others. It's only because it's recent that it looks big. Years later, it will become a footnote, IMO. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 21:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
 * 3) The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * 4) The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * Comment I think she may be notable only for what happened to her 18-year old son. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * She's not the victim. She's the mother of a victim, and she's probably only known for that. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 20:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fighting back the tears, here. I'm sure we can all feel for the unnamed son (but not in a Kevin way, of course). Whatever happened to good ol' teen spirit? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * keep Multiple awards. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most of the award she received were either regional Emmys (which have been criticized for its award criteria, or lack thereof), or recognition for volunteerism and advocacy, which are given to many others as well. If we are to keep articles based on that, everyone on Earth would be able to get a Wikipedia article. By then, what would separate us from MySpace or Facebook? Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 02:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm on Facebook but I don't have several regional awards, and when the region is a State, that's a huge region; as reductio ad absurdum the comparison does not really work. It remains unclear why you are choosing to ignore the Gracie Award, which is a national award and not given for "volunteerism and advocacy".
 * Please keep in mind that this stub was created just 4 days ago, and that there are cultural reasons why it is more difficult to source the careers of women journalists and so harder to get these articles off the ground. The fact is that Wikipedia has 1,662 articles relating to women American journalists, but 3,879 about men. Arguing very hard to delete this one, may not be the best thing for the encyclopedia, especially considering that it is to the public benefit for people to be able to read about Unruh on this project at a time when all major newspapers have been quoting her as an important journalist. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Before the Kevin Spacey thing, no one outside of a particular region of the US knew who Unruh is, and I highly doubt she is going to be known for her work outside of that region after this, because she is out of the TV business. Outside of Unruh's region, to be brutally honest, her name might as well be an animal call on a 2016 Pixar animated movie. Also, turning this into a debate on sexism and male chauvinism is detrimental and divisive. Also, don't even get started on regional Emmys. There are so many controversies before on how they are run (I've worked in the business). You're basically arguing we allow unqualified articles on Wikipedia because of sexual discrimination. That's detrimental to Wikipedia overall, IMHO. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 18:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The references given already attest to sufficient notability and there is plenty of scope for expansion.--Ipigott (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - good references. These refs shows notability and are third party. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The recent coverage on Unruh does not meet GNG, in my opinion, because the coverage is about Kevin Spacey or Unruh's son, and not about Unruh. We are conflating Unruh being a conduit to the victim's allegations to Unruh being notable, as if she is the victim. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 00:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as demonstrated above, passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But is it WP:NTEMP, ? Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 00:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep TV anchors are generally notable, as they are seen by thousands to millions of viewers.  The article seems solid, although I wouldn't mention family.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unfortunately, WP:JOURNALIST begs to differ in the case of TV anchors. Using that logic, we would have to create articles for all the news anchors who worked at KXGN, the smallest TV station in North America. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 02:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't cite JOURNALIST. Unscintillating (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's notability is a test to separate standalone topics from those merged. If you don't want to allow articles on TV anchors, and don't want TV anchors merged to parent articles, I suggest you extend WP:NOT with a WP:NOT guideline.  Otherwise, miniBios of KXGN anchors depends not just on notability, but on whether or not the information has WP:DUE due weight anywhere in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Prominent anchors on major stations are notable figures familiar to often millions of people, per Unscintillating. Her departure from WCVB a year ago was covered by both The Boston Globe and the Boston Herald, which seems a pretty positive sign of notability.--Pharos (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment- Boston Globe and Boston Herald are regional papers at best, with no national significance. We are not talking about New York Times and Washington Post here. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 21:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ...I wasn't going to stick my oar in on this, but then I saw this and my jaw literally dropped (and no, this is not the 'new definition' of literal, either). Are you seriously claiming Boston's papers have "no national significance"? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Boston Globe is noted to be the 25th most read newspaper in the country. Are you telling me that's a widely read newspaper? Even The Arizona Republic is read more than Boston Globe, and I won't say the Republic is a paper of national significance. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 20:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Fæ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete local media news anchors do not pass notability muster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems a strange rationale, because it is inconsistent. Unruh is known for being a journalist with WCVB. Here's a sample list of current anchors and reporters with WCVB with Wikipedia articles, should they be deleted or do they meet GNG for reasons other than those based on their career in local news? Randy Price, Erika Tarantal, Anthony Everett, Ed Harding, Janet Wu, Reid Lamberty. --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment- Yes, and thanks for bringing that up. All should be gone, IMO. None of them are notable beyond their small geographical region. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 21:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia notability is defined neither by your personal opinion nor by geographical regions. I suppose we do see geographical regions of cities used by real estate agents that haven't attracted the attention of the world at large, but the kind of small you seem to be talking about considers the Boston MSA, the tenth largest such area in the U.S., as small.  Do you have standards?  Are you one of these people whose source requirement for GNG is, "more than you have found so far"?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to strongly suggest you follow WP:NPA, . Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 03:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I also find it rather misleading that you are using MSA sizes to make your point, when it is rather well known that the industry uses DMAs to calculate size. According to the latest data, only ~2,000,000 people watch TV in Boston, at all, and when you take into account that not all watch the news, and not all watch Unruh's station, that pool starts to shrink rapidly. Beyond all else, you have yet to make an argument that Unruh meets any notability requirements, other than being the mother of one of Kevin Spacey's victim. Not here to trivialize that (it is serious), but there are more than one mother of a victim in this case. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 08:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Only" two million. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you probably know not everyone of those 2 million watch TV, every single second of every day. When you start taking away those who don't watch news at all, and those who don't watch WCVB, not a lot of people are left. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It remains unclear why you are choosing to ignore the Gracie Award, which is a national award and not just known to the small number of people living in Boston. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Gracie Award's article is noted for possibly not meeting GPG itself. Therefore, I am disregarding the award. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The GNG is not required in some endlessly self-recursive way. An award should be well known, and the Gracie is regularly reported on by Variety and other professional media/comms related press, so "well known" it is. Please refer to WP:ANYBIO. --Fæ (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying this meets ANYBIO because of an award that itself fails GPG? That's like saying something is not faulty because of something that's faulty. I don't agree with your logic in this regard, unfortunately. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 18:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that Wikipedia does not define itself. If you want to claim that the Gracies are not well known, then make that claim but after looking at some news sources. Saying "there ain't no such animal" because you do not find a Wikipedia article is an obvious walled garden. By the way, the article did not "fail GPG", if you want that to happen then put it up for deletion. --Fæ (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The argument that Boston's media and market somehow have 'no national signfificance' is entirely nonsensical. And when it comes to policy, WP:JOURNALIST is irrelevant when the subject meets WP:GNG/WP:BASIC - which she does. There seems to be a heavy movement around AfD these days across multiple genres to argue that if the specialist notability standard is not met, one must delete, GNG be hanged, and that is something that needs to be stamped out posthaste. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Boston's market may be big, but it's not a market that has reech nationally. It's not LA or New York. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject is currently "nationally notable" because of WP:NTEMP, and even then, it's her son that's NTEMP, not her. You are confusing conduit of information with subject. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 17:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see the relevance. WP:ANYBIO does not require that for a Wikipedia article to exist that the subject must be proven to be famous at a national level, nor that we should give proof that millions of people should know their name. If that were true, we would have hardly any articles for academics and I suspect that the vast majority of biographies would have to be deleted. --Fæ (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood. I was saying Unruh is not notable because, on top of not meeting GNG, JOURNALIST, and violating NTEMP, she is not the subject of the NTEMP. She was the person who identified the victim that is now the subject of the NTEMP. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 23:45, 15 November 2017 (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.