Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Johnston


 * 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. Clear evidence iwas presented that her work is notable. The consensus considers that this meets the requirement; the evidence for GNG does not have to be biographical material about her professional life, just material about her work. Journalists become notable by the journalisml.  DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Lucy Johnston

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The subject is marginally notable at best and the article has been the source of problematic additions which have caused the subject to complain to OTRS and to myself directly. The article has been orphaned since its creation because nobody has been able to find an appropriate article from which to link to it, again suggestive of non-notability. The two sources cited are a dead link to the the Humane Society of the United States' website and an article on the IFJ website that verifies a commedation she was awarded in 1998. The main source of any coverage she has in reliable sources is some severe criticism of a particular article she wrote. There is little else in the way of coverage of her work and nothing (that I have been able to find) by way of biographical details in reliable sources, so an argument could be made that BLP1E applies. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  08:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment There are some disturbing elements to this AfD, not least that the current article is a shadow of its former self, with many reliable citations deleted, most probably by people opposed to her views which in 2009 in particular were certainly controversial. However the complaints then are not the only thing for which she has been in the news. Here are some (apologies for length):
 * headhunted from Big Issue by Observer
 * Minority Thought (attacks Lucy Johnston) 9 January 2011
 * Daily Express scoops international award for Imutran exposé, 2001 (Lucy Johnston and Jonathan Calvert were presented with the award by film star Tim Curry)
 * She drew criticism in 2007 for "Dangers of MMR Jab" (a major and long-lasting controversy); and in 2009 for Jab as deadly as the cancer. This particular controversy thus extended over a period of three years.
 * No less than Ben Goldacre critiqued her in his Bad Science column: Jabs as bad as the cancer, Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, 10 October 2009. Goldacre also critiqued Johnston's Express piece on mobile phone masts, another controversy.
 * Professor Diane Harper complained formally about her: Complaint, 10 October 2009. The Sunday Express published an apology October 2009 apology by Sunday Express.
 * On 26 April 2010, NICE requested the Sunday Express to print a correction relating to an article "SCANDAL OF LIFE-SAVING DRUGS HELD UP BY POLL" on 25 April 2010. This was a separate event from the above.
 * There appears to have been a long-running edit war about all this. However that doesn't seem reason not to report the facts about the several controversies (MMR, Cancer drugs, NICE - not just a single BLP1E) using the reliable published sources listed here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment You stated that the article is a shadow of its former self, with many references removed. Rather than judge just the merits of the present form of the article, and to save every other editor form having to page through every previous revision, could you please point to the previous version which you feel best demonstrates that the person satisfies WP:BIO? Edison (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Info: OK, there has never been a stable version, but 19 March 2012 is as informative as any. My point is rather that there are RS out there and they have been in the article, which is why they are listed above. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you address the fact that those articles contain pretty much zero biographical information about this person (since, after all, they discuss the factual errors themselves, only mentioning this person as the author of the stated-to-be-erroneous articles) and that the only biography that can be constructed out of them is the fairly dreadful revision that you point to, which tells us nothing biographical? This seems to be a textbook case of things that shouldn't be presented in Wikipedia in a biographical article, because they are actually about (to pick one) the scientific statements made about Cervarix by The Daily Express, and don't tell us anything about this person other than that she was the byline.  Uncle G (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "How do I address it?" Like this: We have a great many bio article which have been kept in AFDs, which do not have date and place of birth, education, and family information. These include bios of CEOs of major corporations, which AFDs found to be notable because the individuals have multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of their accomplishments and positions in the business world,  and because they have had an important effect in their field of endeavor, as has this person. To a greater extent, we have thousands of bio articles about some jock who played a few games of some professional sport, with far less significant coverage than this person,. We have at least hundreds and likely thousands of articles about "porn stars" whose articles only relate what "porn awards" their onscreen copulations and sodomies garnered, and what films they were in. while hardly any even give their real names. (See Long Dong Silver, which survived 3 AFDs, if you are unfamiliar with this vast number of bios.)  Many such bio articles have survived AFDs.  I do not see in WP:BIO where it says that the subject's birthplace and birthdate, schooling, residence and family, etc must be freely available in online sources. The sources for this article are by no means just articles under her byline as you imply, but deal with perceived failures in her reporting. To balance that, there are also awards recognizing her accomplishments in reportage. Edison (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words: You address it by pretending that it's OK that there's zero biographical material in the sources to be had, and that articles whose subjects are not this person's life and works can somehow magically support a biography of this person's life and works even though they don't document them in the slightest but are rather articles disagreeing with other articles about subjects such as Cervarix and the MMR vaccine controversy. You need to read Project:Coatrack.  Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:BIO. BLP1E does not apply when  she has won  a 1998 commendation from the International Federation of Journalists for her  article "Barred from Animals Kingdom"  as well as a 2001 'Genesis Award' from the Humane Society of the United States for her article on pharmaecutical companies, "Terrible Despair of Animals Cut Up in the Name of Research".  The Humane Society award being a deadlink does not make it not exist,. Does the nominator think it is a hoax? Indications are that her story in fact a winner in 2001  at the 15th Annual Genesis Awards, "an international distinction that recognizes members of the major news and entertainment media for spotlighting animal issues with courage, creativity and integrity."  A career in journalism, including influential writings about animal research and animal abuse, capped by being health editor of the Express,  is by no stretch of the imagination "one event." A smoldering edit war, with criticism of her article "Jab as deadly as the cancer'" criticizing a cancer vaccine, and harsh condemnation of said article by a "bad science" column being alternately added to and removed from the article, is not a valid reason to delete the bio article. Several books have some coverage of her work, per a Google Search, although the content is not viewable online and some may be false positives. The talk page of the article does not show a serious effort to establish a consensus as to what the article should say in regard to the "jab" article and the response to it from the journalism and science communities. There are certainly BLP issues, so protect the article and work via its talk page toward a balanced section on the article "Jab as deadly as the cancer,"  the backlash to it from journalists and scientists, and an apology of sorts and the removal of the story from the Express website. Edison (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you address the fact that "A was criticized by B, C, and D." is not a biography, but a coatrack for the actual subject, which in the cases of the sources so far pointed to appears to be various health/science topics such as Cervarix and the MMR vaccine controversy? Uncle G (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * She is an influential journalist, and the health editor of a major newspaper, and her work has had multiple instances of significant secondary coverage by reliable sources, particularly with controversial claims that some types of vaccinations are harmful, and in reportage on animal research, with recognition by the Humane Society of the US and other well known organizations, as well as multiple significant coverage in books and newspaper articles, satisfying WP:N. Do you understand that "various health/science topics" plus animal welfare, is not one little area in which people criticize her?  Edison (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * her work has had multiple instances of significant secondary coverage by reliable sources &mdash; No, it hasn't; neither has the person's life; and that's the point. Rebuttals dealing with other subjects do not constitute biography.  Try pointing to an article that gives biographical information about this person, not non-biographical information about a science/health subject or a public debate, and after seeing that it's not possible maybe you'll comprehend that.  Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The work certainly has been covered in good secondary sources, repeatedly, on multiple issues. It is true that LJ has been extremely private with her personal life, which is fine, but that does not exempt her writing life from public discussion and encyclopedic public record. Her writing life is notable for its repeated and strong ventures into controversies that she has created: people have reacted to her expression, not only and individually to the topics she has written about. The pen is not independent of the hand, and for example Ben Goldacre's Bad Science is crystal clear that LJ's science writing is a serious and notable topic. It would form a perfect starting point for a tutorial on science and society, for instance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient coverage exists to pass WP:GNG, plus the amount of criticism directed at her is significant enough to pass WP:CREATIVE as well. The lack of biographical detail is irrelevent - reliable sources have written about her work, and that is enough for her to be notable by Wikipedia standards. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Delete:  This is not an easy AfD.  If not for the fact that article is being used on and off to emphasize criticism of the subject, I wouldn't worry too much that someone decided to write an article about the "health editor" of the Sunday Express a middling British Sunday paper.  But scads of successful competent professionals receive some awards and recognition for their work.  I've read the "most full" version of Lucy's bio as identified by Chiswick Chap, and its really not that special.  Cf. even Marilyn Hagerty (not subjected to AfD, but certainly has a lot more coverage than this one if considering BLP1E).  This is all somewhat subjective, and I don't disagree with Edison's !vote lightly.   When you have someone marginally notable like this, and the article has been subject to attacks, and the subject wants deletion, I usually favor deletion.  (Cf. Articles for deletion/Serene Branson we considered a Los Angeles area reporter who had won some awards, but got fame because of an apparent episode of aphasia she had on camera.  She hadn't requested deletion, but BLP concerns were present.)--Milowent • hasspoken  03:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - agree that this one isn't easy, but feel Edison is right here. Johnson is, like it or not, definitely in the public gaze, and has won enough prizes to be notable. The series of controversies that she has stirred up is also on public record (indisputably existing) and again she is notable for that. For both these reasons she can't fairly be called "marginally notable". Unlike the one-off 'aphasia' of Serene Branson, Johnson's fame is long-lasting and not the result of any one minor slip. And the most probable explanation of the 'attacks' is that Johnson herself tried to remove or emasculate the article, including reliably-cited facts: not a cause for deletion (indeed, blocking might have been appropriate). So we should face the discomfort and keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is arguably a borderline case, and if the subject had requested deletion, I'd support that. But it seems her main concern is that the problems with the page should end, so with that in mind I've expanded it and added more references (diff). With more eyes on it after this AfD and with HJ's semi-protection, hopefully the page will stabilize. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2012 (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.