Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mackenzee Wittke


 * 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   no consensus. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Mackenzee Wittke

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP1E? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  05:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep There are references provided. The external link discusses the person in the article as well. There are plenty of results in a google or yahoo search. I also learned about this individual from a magazine that I found. It does deserve an entry even if at stub level for now. Further development will warrant more material added to the article.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see how WP:BLP1E would apply (there's no event). But I can't find the coverage needed for WP:GNG. Maclean's did a feature on her but that's about it. The only other sources I can find are just rehashing the Maclean's piece. If she receives more coverage in the future, or if researchers publish research related to her then she may be notable at that point. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 17:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I nominated the article under BLP1E because of the claim to notability: "a person who continued to have a six-month old body". An interesting case, I agree, but probably not enough to be a strong claim to notability. I do understand that there are references in the article, and I took that into account when nominating the article, but again, one event(?), or at the very least only a single claim to notability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Although I still think it should be kept, could the article be saved for any future purposes? Like be unpublished and re-published when notable for others? That way we wouldn't loose any contributions added here.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  03:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep as passes GNG ] - Not the most perfect of sources but notability is there, However I will say the article does need expanding imho. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. This article definitely requires expansion. Perhaps you can use those sources you shared to expand it. --Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing I don't like about this is that it's unduly invasive of her and her family's right to medical privacy. It's not as though this is a particularly important topic that we need to maintain an article about — if genuinely substantive importance were there, it would be possible to write a much longer, much more substantive, and much better sourced article than this. So yes, this essentially does fall under WP:BLP1E — the 1E being "was diagnosed with an unusual medical condition". There are a lot of topics (unelected candidates in elections, alleged but not convicted criminals, etc.) where the fact that sources are possible to locate is not, in and of itself, considered enough of a reason for us to keep an article about them — she's a low-profile person of little to no actual public prominence, so we have to give extra consideration to her privacy rights. And the fact that there's literally no possible category for her to be filed in besides her birth year and — "Canadian what-occupation"? "People from What City"? — doesn't convince me of her overriding notability either. So I have to come down on the delete side. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 17:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge per sources. Bearcat raises a privacy issue which I would find compelling if her parents were shown not to be willing participants in the media coverage (in the understandable hope that the study and attention might benefit their child). A WP:BLP1E argument can be made that she is notable only for being born with her medical condition but, as the condition is not yet medically recognized, it is difficult to identify a merge target. We could possibly merge this biography to Brooke Greenberg, an earlier patient studied by Dr. Walker with the same condition. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is that our standard of privacy is significantly higher than "media coverage exists, therefore privacy is no longer an issue". Most media is either locally-oriented or serves a specialized interest rather than a general readership, and will never be seen by anybody who isn't already looking for it — but Wikipedia is one of the most widely-read websites in the world, so an article on here is being spotlighted to an international audience in a way that completely dwarfs whatever loss of privacy resulted from the original media coverage. And furthermore, because Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, we can't guarantee that nobody will ever try to add inappropriate content to the article: we can't guarantee that nobody will ever try to add the Wittke family's home address and phone number; we can't guarantee that nobody will ever rewrite the article to describe Mackenzee as a "freaky alien monster"; we can't guarantee that nobody will ever try to add unsourced personal criticism of how rude her father was to them at McDonald's last week; we can't guarantee that nobody will ever try to add unsourced speculation about what Mackenzee's medical condition might be; and on and so forth. So for all of those reasons, our standard of privacy is considerably stricter than "if media coverage exists, then the person is automatically fair game for Wikipedia coverage" — there are some classes of topic where, even if sourcing can be located, the presumption of privacy still requires us to leave them hidden in those sources and not cover them on here. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If privacy's the reason this article should be an issue, then that can go for just about every living biography on Wikipedia. Also if her parents allowed her to be photographed, her doctors to discuss, and herself be examined by medics, then they can toss out their privacy claim. My understanding is if you get enough media, academic/historic coverage or at least either of the two, you warrant a Wikipedia entry.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The distinction between "person whom we should have an article about because public interest" and "person whom we should not have an article about because privacy" hinges on whether the topic is prominent enough a public figure that a reasonably broad readership can be expected to be able to monitor the article for potential policy violations and personal privacy issues. Barack Obama, for example, is a prominent and high-profile subject, in whose article any inappropriate content will get caught almost instantly because a lot of people read the article every day — whereas Wittke is a low-profile subject who might garner as few as ten readers or less per year, and thus any vandalism to her article could potentially stay there uncaught for months or even years because not enough people are seeing it in the first place to adequately control for that. That's the difference. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2015 (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.