Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Willingham


 * 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   'Rename/refocus'. While there are some misstatements of policy here, there is a consensus that the primary content here has a notable basis, and that a refocus to an article on the scandal is warranted. S. Marshall is correct that the correct policy codification of that is WP:BIO1E. As no specific proposal has been made for a new title, I will appoint a placeholder with the understanding that further discussion at the talk page to determine the best name for the refocused article. j⚛e deckertalk 21:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Mary Willingham

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Possible WP:BLP1E, because Willingham is notably only for her extensive criticisms (possibly science by press conference) about college athletics.

Also fails WP:ACADEMIC, since her Drake Group award can't really be considered "highly prestigious" per criteria #2. No evidence of #1 that Willingham's research "has made significant impact in [her] scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources," or any of the other notability criteria. Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Change the name and focus of article - I do not think Willingham herself is notable. So an article about her specifically I vote to delete. However, I think the scandal is definitely notable and I would like to see it on wikipedia. Given the article on Willingham is only about her part in the scandal, I think we can just change the name and do a few minor edits and we can keep it. That is my suggestion: change this into an article about the scandal. It has gotten extensive press, it's interesting. The whole "fake classes" thing is something I'd click on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali88 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename per Bali88. There is almost no detail here about this individual, reading the article one learns about the scandal not her.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge/Move to an article about the scandal, which I was surprised to see doesn't exist yet (at least not that I see). WP:ONEEVENT seems to apply here, but given the continued coverage of the story, the scandal would seem to pass WP:EVENT. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  19:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually there is an article about the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill football scandal, but I wonder if Willingham's comments (and those by guys like Rashad McCants) warrent a "UNC basketball scandal/controversy" article? (Edit) And MW has made claims about UNC football players. Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand, that's not the same scandal, but I suppose could be seen as an extension thereof. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  06:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete There is not a scandal, there is hot air. This was a passing claim that was latched onto by people who wanted to believe it, but at best in the long run merits mention in an article like Allegations of academic failure by college athletes, not an independent article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But a scandal isn't defined by whether or not you believe it -- just the extant sources (and duration of coverage and all that). Even if it's false, if it receives significant coverage in reliable sources, it's ok by Wikipedia standards. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  06:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded. It doesn't matter if the claims ultimately hold water. They are getting a huge amount of press and have impacted the university in a big way. That is notability. The satanic ritual child sex abuse craze a couple decades ago was nothing but a bunch of hot air but it was a cultural phenomenon that impacted a lot of people. Bali88 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - In light of two new developments, it's clear this is not "hot air" and Willingham is more notable than ever -- NCAA is reopening the investigation into UNC, and Willingham is now filing a civil lawsuit. Press from last 24 hours below. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * National media - NY Times - N.C.A.A. Is Reopening Inquiry Into Academic Violations at North Carolina
 * Sports media - ESPN - NCAA again investigating UNC
 * Local media - News and Observer - NCAA reopens investigation of academic misconduct at UNC
 * Lawsuit - News and Observer - Willingham, whistleblower in UNC academic case, says she has sued the school
 * Her role in this is definitely significant, but personally, since she's only notable for this one thing, I think a prominent mention of Willingham in an article about the UNC fake classes scandal would be a better fit. The scandal is basically the entire thing and would take up the entire article, so it makes more sense to have her name redirect to an article about the scandal itself.Bali88 (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I could see it go either way, but I think people throw around WP:BLP1E and hone in on "one event" without really understanding the policy. To fall under BLP1E and justify not having an article about the individual, each of the three conditions must be met according to the policy. In this case, conditions 2 and 3 are not met. She is not low-profile (she's a named an award winner and filing a civil lawsuit) and her role is substantial and well-documented. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there. I'm not saying she fails notability on that basis, she passes gng if you ask me. I just think it would be a better article if we focus on the scandal and her role in it than on her personally. I know my own interests aren't a good justification, but I can see myself being interested in the scandal and her role in it but not so much the details of who she's married to, where she went to college, etc. I assume others are like me. Bali88 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - This subject has received extensive national media coverage for multiple reasons now as shown by all the links previously posted. I agree too. --Freidrichright (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There's an ongoing confusion about BLP1E on Wikipedia. For some reason, editors are under the impression that it applies to everyone who's only notable for one event.  In fact that's not so: as it says plainly under WP:BLP1E, it applies only to low-profile individuals, which Mary Willingham clearly is not.  The guideline (not policy) that does apply to Mary Willingham is WP:BIO1E.  If we apply what BIO1E actually says, then you end up with the recommendation Bali88 and others have already supplied: to retitle and repurpose the article, setting up Mary Willingham as a redirect because (1) it's a likely search term for that material and (2) it maintains the history for copyright attribution purposes.  This also complies with WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, in that there's a reasonable alternative to deletion and we always prefer reasonable alternatives where possible.— S Marshall  T/C 12:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * +1 for . Too often, people never make it past the shortcut title like BLP1E or NOTNEWS. If you actually read the policies/guidelines, they don't actually match the reasoning of those using them. -- Fuzheado | Talk


 * Keep as per . Notable subject, meets GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2014 (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.