Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Figge


 * 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. Clearly there is consensus to write about the incident, although it does appear that "hoax" may not be perfectly applicable to this situation. Move/rename discussions should occur outside of AfD as consensus for that came later in the discussion, and hasn't been shown. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Figge

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


 * Delete This article was written because it seemed that the woman had accomplished a significant "first" in human achievement.  Now that this is known to be untrue, the incident is not notable.  If, however, reaction to the inaccuracy of the reporting becomes notable, a new article might be written about that.  --DavidK93 (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- Edgehead  5150  19:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep (article creator) - Yep, I got duped too. But even the controversy of the reporting has become notable by some very reliable sources like The Guardian and others..  An example of journalists believing and repeating any press release that's shoved in front of them without critical analysis. --Oakshade (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete but maybe create an article about the hoax. -- Ja Ga  talk 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if "hoax" would be the word for it. Exaggeration would be more accurate. --Oakshade (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * *Shrug* your second source called it a hoax, but no matter, they were probably just having fun with the title. The point is, I think the exaggeration is more notable than the, er, exaggeratrix. She was notable when we thought she'd swam the Atlantic. Now we know she hasn't, boom, non-notable.  But the story about the story is notable, IMO. -- Ja Ga  talk  22:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that source has the word "hoax" in the title. But even the text of that story doesn't support it being a "hoax."  I think a hoax would be a complete fabrication, like she didn't swim in the water at all and then showed up in Trinidad prompting a press release saying she "swam the Atlantic." Even the "hoax" article says the 250 miles she probably did swim "is nothing to scoff." --Oakshade (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jennifer Figge controversy or Jennifer Figge misrepresentation would be more neutral WP:NPOV than hoax, in my opinion. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and never, ever speak of this again. Keepscases (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. She's getting a lot of media coverage (695 google news hits doesn't tell the whole story, she's on TV a lot as well). She could be the next Rosie Ruiz. If, in 6 months, she's utterly forgotten... then I might want to delete this. But we might as well keep it around so people can work on it now. --Movingday29 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This represents a major media SNAFU, and is notable on that account. Giving a person international coverage for something she didn't do is notable in its own right. 99.246.90.33 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep She may not have done exactly what it was advertised she did, but still it's a notable feat. Besides, she's getting a lot of media coverage, as pointed above. --Waldir talk 00:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep She may have not done what was reported, but the controversy that erupted afterwards makes her notable. She still swam a lot of the atlantic ocean, and as noted above, is getting ton of media coverage. Myzou (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case the controversy is notable, not the person. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep- She's already become notable thanks to her original (now debunked) claim. The media frenzy covering what is now known as something that didn't quite happen will only enhance that notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to Jennifer Figge controversy. She's only notable for this hoax/controversy, so we should cover the event not the person WP:BLP1E. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT, as interpreted by WP:NOTNEWS. Deor (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an interesting enough hoax, to be notable, I think.  It fooled MANY mainstream news outlets, and the error is pretty egregious.  I'm open to debate about how to name the article--I think that it's more appropriate to have an article focusing on the hoax itself, than focusing on the individual.  But I do think we must keep the material.  Cazort (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly move to a title describing the controversy rather than the person. This can and should be rewritten to be an article about a hoax per WP:HOAX. KuyaBriBri Talk 20:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. First of all, several people are calling this a hoax--it's not a hoax, it's a misrepresentation.  Secondly, this shouldn't really about the miniature media circus--that clearly falls under WP:NOT.  I would argue that Jennifer Figge and Benoît Lecomte should both be merged to an article called Swimming the Atlantic (or something similar) that would discuss both accomplishments and the difficulty in assessing them (and the fact that they have often been called something which is inaccurate). Chick Bowen 03:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and/or/but move to Jennifer Figge controversy Vartanza (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Jennifer Figge controversy or similar. The controversy itself warrants an article, but the person does not.  —David Levy 13:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move per above. She's notable (now) but only as part of a larger event. Themfromspace (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2009 (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.