Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mackenzee Wittke (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Mackenzee Wittke
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:BLP of a low-profile person who received a very brief blip of media coverage about a decade ago for having an unusual medical condition, but hasn't had any significant coverage since. This isn't really making a particularly strong case that she would pass WP:GNG: there's a magazine article, a news story about the publication of that magazine article in another media outlet, and a (deadlinked but waybackable) article that briefly mentions Wittke's existence in the process of being fundamentally about somebody else with the same condition who doesn't have a Wikipedia article. (I've also already merged two other footnotes that were really just repetitions of the magazine article in different forms, such as a PDF of the print copy of the magazine issue that the same article appeared in, and a "sneak peek" preview of the same article in the magazine's "coming in the next issue" newsletter.) So there's really only one genuinely GNG-worthy source here, which isn't enough, and even on a WP:BEFORE search I'm just not really finding much else of value: the only new source I can find that's been published since that magazine article just rehashes the same information without adding anything new. The first deletion discussion eight years ago foundered on the question of whether she would be subject to WP:BLP1E or not, as it wasn't clear whether anything in the article constituted an "event" per se -- but essentially the notability claim here amounts to "young girl who once had a magazine article published about her", which clearly counts as an event. She just doesn't have the depth or volume of coverage necessary to justify a permanent intrusion into her and her family's privacy rights, and we have an established rule that due to the potential of a Wikipedia article to cause harm, we have to be especially careful about the notability of minors. So we would need far more than just the absolute bare minimum number of usable footnotes for a technical GNG pass before an article about her was actually warranted. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. Skynxnex (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: A subject to WP:BLP1E. Which isn't tolerated on Wikipedia. CastJared (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Still seems relevant, she was featured in a 2016 news story . And she may hold the secret to aging acoording to a Macleans article (a reputable Canadian magazine) and in Ars Technica . And a mention in 2021 for a gov't program to study pediatric conditions in Alberta  Oddly enough, there is no coverage in Gscholar or Jstor. More than enough sustained coverage for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Maclean's article is the same Maclean's article that I already addressed in the nomination statement (i.e. it's fine, but not all by itself enough), the 2016 news story is the same additional source I already addressed in my nomination statement with when I said "the only new source I can find that's been published since that magazine article just rehashes the same information without adding anything new", and the Ars Technica source is just a republication in a different source of the same article I already addressed in my nomination statement when I said "a (deadlinked but waybackable) article that briefly mentions Wittke's existence in the process of being fundamentally about somebody else with the same condition who doesn't have a Wikipedia article". And "mentioned in passing within coverage of other things" doesn't assist notability at all — she isn't the subject of that 2021 piece, and instead just gets briefly glanced at in coverage whose core subject is something else, so it doesn't add any new GNG points above and beyond the sources that were already under discussion. As a low-profile figure with personal privacy rights, we would need a lot more coverage than that to justify intruding into those personal privacy rights. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I would consider her condition to be a BLP1E even though it isn't strictly an "event." The articles about her are all brief and reiterate the same facts, sometimes using exactly the same sentences. The one possible reason to either keep this article or add information to the article on Aging is that if medical research turns up substantial information it will be anonymized for reasons of privacy. However, it probably will not be possible to link actual medical research to this person, and Wikipedia should not do so without confirmation. (Her name does not appear in G-Scholar.) Lamona (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - a merge to Brooke_Greenberg may be feasible - the Maclean's article compares Wittke's condition to Greenberg's, and notes "Brooke's story attracted national media attention—she was on TLC, Katie Couric, in People—and other families reached out to Walker about their kids," etc. Beccaynr (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with OP:s assessment. The combined sources do not approach GNG nor allow the creation of a basic biographic article. Draken Bowser (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - this brief article appears to be a WP:COATRACK for an apparent extraordinary claim that this child has a condition which according to the article, "may hold answers to the scientific study of aging." So in addition to the WP:BLP policy issues related to privacy for the child and her family who appear to have primarily received in-depth coverage in the Maclean's source, this article appears to functionally not be about the purported subject. As I noted above, a brief mention on a related article may make sense (the condition does not appear to be formally named, and Richard Walker, the scientist who has studied the condition in multiple people, does not appear to have an article), but the sources are identified in this discussion and there does not appear to be substantial content available to merge. Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - WP:BLP issues, and not notable. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:30, 22 June 2023 (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.