Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Heche


 * 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. As with many other backlogged discussions where there is a majority for deletion but several who argue for retention as well, this one is a somewhat tough call, but after reviewing the arguments I see no consensus for deletion, nor any argument that strongly compels deletion on policy based grounds. Joe decker provided an argument early in the discussion showing that Mrs. Heche has been the subject of full article reviews, addressing her specifically. Whether this is truly sufficient for notability is open for discussion, but I could not see anyone addressing this point. Note also that the WP:NOTINHERITED link frequently cited is a subsection of the WP:ATA essay (not a guideline or policy) that warns against superficial arguments that "She's related to someone famous, so she should have an article". Looking through the discussion, I got the impression that the keep votes had more substance to their arguments than that. Many based their thoughts on notability as an author, not merely as a relative to a famous actress. In addition, many of the delete votes suggested moving parts of the content to the article on the actress, this would be a merge, not a deletion. That option is not precluded by this AFD result. Sjakkalle (Check!)  20:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nancy Heche

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Does not have significant coverage to warrant inclusion per WP:BASIC. Only claim to fame is relation to Anne Heche, which is an invalid reason for inclusion per WP:ITSA. West Eddy (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and propose sanctioning Lionelt. This is yet another one of Lionelt's obvious hatchet jobs where he uses a non-notable biography as a coatrack to obscure his usual anti-homosexual POV pushing.  As a heterosexual, I am aghast that he is still allowed to edit here.  If this were about race, politics, or sex, he would have been blocked a long time ago, but because he's bashing gays, it is somehow not a problem.  Enough is enough. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You always know how to put a smile on my face X-O-X-O   – Lionel (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Proposed decision. Quickly. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'll be sure to rush right over there. HAHAHAHA!!! – Lionel (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, you cite an essay, WP:COATRACK, which lacks the strength in this discussion of a guideline or policy, but which I still believe makes some valid points that deserve respect. Would you address the following advice from that essay, please?  "An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources."  Have you attempted to do so?  --joe deckertalk to me 14:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep   Full-article reviews of her two books, one in the Chicago Sun Times, the other in the Christian Post, evidence notability in my view via WP:GNG, quite a bit of coverage in "Call me Crazy" by her daughter, This Daily Herald piece and the CBN piece give me additional confidence in my judgment.  Notability is not inherited automatically via policy, but sometimes it leads towards notability in the real world, and so may or may not be the case here, through the subject's activism and authorship. Possible POV issues, even egregious ones, should be dealt with via normal editing and/or getting assistance at the POV noticeboard; concerns about problematic editors should similarly be taken to the appropriate noticeboard, neither is, per Wikipedia policy, a valid rationale for article deletion.  --joe deckertalk to me 04:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: the article is a stub. Evenso it has enough sources to pass WP:BASIC. We don't delete articles just because we don't like the subject or the editor who creates the article. – Lionel (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead section states that "Heche is a psychotherapist, part-time college professor and activist". Is she notable for any of those things?  Or is she only notable for being the mother of actress Anne Heche, and are you using that connection to build a coatrack stub to push your anti-gay agenda?  Let's look at the sources and find out:  1) The Chicago Sun-Times article (which I have full access to on HighBeam) is about Heche's "fundamentalist Christian message that people don't have to be gay" as published in her memoir, The Truth Comes Out.  So, this is a source about her book, and the message of the book.  The only reason she's being reviewed is because she's the mother of the famous actress, not because she is a notable psychotherapist, college professor, or activist.  2) A link to a book review on the Christianexaminer.com focusing specifically on her anti-gay message. 3) A link to an interview on The 700 Club about her book promoting her anti-gay message. 4) A link to a book review of The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality in The Christian Post promoting her anti-gay message. 5) A link to Derfner's book to support the statement "Heche has been a speaker for Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX)".  So what do we have?  Four book reviews of two different books published by three partisan sources pushing an anti-gay POV.  Where are the reliable sources about Nancy Heche?  That's right, there aren't any.  This is yet another, Lionelt-approved coatrack stub, pushing the fundamentalist, anti-gay POV while hiding behind a so-called biography. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Per joe decker; BLP requires more sources and may need rewording to satisfy NPOV. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 12:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which sources? Are there any biographical sources about Nancy Heche? No, because she's only notable for being Anne Heche's mom and for trying to pray the gay away. If she wasn't Anne Heche's mom, we wouldn't be having this discussion because nobody would have given her any press time. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your commentary, I'll add that one to my care's box. I have simply stated that the article requires more reliable sources - as does hundreds - if not thousands of article's on Wikipedia. Thank you, -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 13:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Anne Heche's mom would not be notable solely because she is in related to the famous actor. Notability is not inherited.  I don't think anyone is asserting she would qualify under WP:ACADEMIC.  However, she is an author, and it seems there are references that deal with her, beyond saying she is the mom of of a famous actor.  That is sufficient to justify having an article about her.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:AUTHOR and WP:NBOOK. I'm not seeing anything notable here except for "Hey everybody! Anne Heche's mom wants to pray the gay away!"  So yes, she inherited her notability from Anne Heche, and it is important to note that her book reviews are, for the most part from self-interested parties who want to pray the gay away. Viriditas (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you going to badger every editor who votes Keep?– Lionel (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He has not badgered any editor. He has engaged in the deletion discussion by addressing their arguments; a discussion of the merits of keeping this article. Please retract your comment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into a sentence or two in Anne Heche, which already has a section on her family. Non-notable individual who gets discussed a lot in unreliable media that either wants to promote her fringe views or that feeds on celebrity scandal, but not enough real coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. I share Viriditas's suspicion of the purpose behind the article's creation; it's little more than a collection of anti-gay quotes and quotes promoting fringe scientific theories about "curing" gays. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment -- We shouldn't impose a higher burden on establishing the notability of individuals who hold views that differ from ours. So Ms Heche is not a gay-positive individual?  Who says this is a fringe view?  How many of the individuals who vied for the Republican nomination for the US Presidency hold the same or similiar views on homosexuality?  I'll accept it is a minority view, but it is at least an order of magnitude too common to be a frienge view.  We should all aim to be be sufficiently fair that that we can draft a neutrally written article that fairly gives the appropriate amount of coverage to views we disagree with.  As I read this article I didn't see any glaring lapses from WP:NPOV.  I remind everyone that, if an article is on a notable topic, then perceived lapses from WP:NPOV are supposed to be addressed through wikitags, discussion on the article's talk page, and attempts to replace wording regarded as biased with more neutral wording.  Our deletion policies are pretty clear -- noone is supposed to argue for the deletion of articles due to a concern over bias.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You've managed to miss the point altogether. The user who created the biography of Nancy Heche often creates articles and adds content focused solely on criticizing homosexuals; it is editorial bias that is the problem here, not the bias of the subject.  The fact remains, the subject is notable only as the mother of a famous actress.  There are no sources about Heche's mother aside from reviews of her books pushed by anti-gay sources. This biography is nothing but a coatrack for POV pushing; it is not nor could it be a well sourced encyclopedia article about a notable person.  Up above, I pointed Lionelt to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Proposed decision because I see no difference between his edits about homosexuals and Noleander's previous edits about Jews.  In both cases, these editors went out of their way to criticize and portray each group in a negative manner.  In this particular case, Lionelt is using the coatrack strategy to "hide" his POV pushing behind what appears to be a legitimate subject, in this case, a biography.  But when one looks closer, one finds there is nothing to say except "Nancy Heche is the mother of a famous actress and doesn't like homosexuals".  While that might be fine for Conservapedia, that's just not good enough for Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The stub has enough sources to pass WP:BASIC and you know it, pal. Your pathetic attempt to personalize this AFD and make it about my editing philosophy is a BIG FAIL, dude, ha. Just drop the stick already...– Lionel (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WRT the assertion that the original author of this article has a history of creating biased stubs intended to push an anti-gay agenda. This assertion is (1) irrelevant; (2) a serious lapse from our policies and conventions on civility and collegial decision making.  It is irrelevant because a perceived bias is not a valid reason to argue for the deletion of an article.  If a topic is notable then we address the bias, we don't jump to deletion.
 * You assert above Nancy Heche "appears to be a legitimate subject" -- but without seeming willing to consider that Heche IS a legitimate subject. Everyone has a mother.  99.x percent of those mothers are not notable, but Nancy Heche and her daughter Anne Heche have differed, wildly, on what their home was like while the children were growing up.
 * I spent over an hour last night looking at the individual references offered by the google book search above. Eighty to ninety percent seem to be by fellow conservative Christians who are supportive of Nancy Heche.  Some portion of those fellow conservate Christians accept, at face value, that entreaties to God, via Nancy's prayers, succeeded in turning Anne back to heterosex.  Critics, on the other hand, criticize mother Nancy for failing to apologize for, or even acknowledge, that she failed to protect her children from sexual abuse from her husband.  Critics challenge how she can represent herself as an examplar of family values without acknowledging parents have a responsibility to protect their vulnerable children from abuse by other family members.  So, no, the assertion, above, "There are no sources about Heche's mother aside from reviews of her books pushed by anti-gay sources..." is not correct.  Nancy Heche has done more than go on record as disapproving of homosexuality.  She has claimed appeals to God through prayer can turn gay people back to heterosexuality.  She is far more prominent than you are willing to acknowledge.  There are a lot of topics that I think are nonsense.  Homeopathy and Iridology are two of them.  But I don't try to suppress coverage of them -- I merely expect that fans -- and critics -- of these fields will make sure their work on these topics fully complies with our policies, and uses reliable sources, refrains from original research, and is written from a neutral point of view.
 * Personally, I don't agree that homosexuality needs to be "fixed", that gay people shouldn't be parents, that prayer has any value in improving the lives of the faithful other, perhaps, in feeling better through accepting with some grace life circumstances they can't alter. But I wouldn't try to push my POV.  I wouldn't try to push my POV by agreeing to suppress appropriate coverage of the views of those who disagree with me.  And I am not comfortable with attempts to editorialize and introduce bias to promote or denigrate positions on topics where I have a POV.  I re-read the article again, today.  Although, apparently, you and I hold similar personal interpretations of Nancy Heche's views I see no bias.  If, for the sake of argument, I overlooked that bias, I am going to repeat that our policies state this bias you perceive is not grounds for deletion.  If you can't be specific as to how this article pushes a bias, as opposed to appropriately covers notable views, written from a neutral point of view, then I would suggest you consider withdrawing your claims of bias.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan, thank you, although we certainly disagree on the POV issue, we're in firm agreement that this is not the venue for addressing editor behavior, nor is editor behavior an argument for deletion. (I will not address questions of editor behavior further unless and until they are brought up in an appropriate forum.) I can't speak for the editor you were replying to, but I know I do see problems in the article, and I will be happy to enumerate an incomplete list:
 * Source selection We see many sources, and some discussion, from the point of view of Nancy's view of Anne, but nothing going the other way. When *I* look for sources, I see sources that describe Nancy in a variety of lights, and our article as proving an WP:UNDUE weight to the positive. A neutral article certainly could have made use of sources such as Anne's book (which probably has more coverage of Nancy than all the other sources combined), as well as newspaper articles such as, , , and so on. Similarly, quotes are provided only from complementary sources, while many other views are available.
 * Neutrality on estrangement Anne writes that she believes Nancy overlooked her husband's alleged molestation of Anne. It's impossible, in my view, for a neutral discussion of how the two came to be estranged to omit this topic--it is part of the "story" of their estrangement to the extent that that estrangement belongs in the article at all.
 * Pseudoscience That Nancy Heche believes in the ability of prayer to change orientation is not in dispute, however, leaving that sentence in an article without the context of scientific consensus on the question is contrary to WP:PSCI.
 * Pejoratives As I've observed in other discussions, the use of the word 'homosexual', as a noun in Wikipedia's voice, in the case where that person themselves uses 'gay' is in plain violation of MOS:IDENTITY. As 'homosexual' (noun) is considered generally considered pejorative, it also violates WP:NPOV.  (I'm pointing at the first sentence of the last paragraph of the Activism section violates this, although most other uses are in Nancy's voice and are entirely within policy.)
 * Promotion of a particular religious view The article claims the Bible's proscription of "love towards homosexuals" as a fact in Wikipedia's voice, and that promotes a particular, religious POV, one that is disputed by other sources as to the meaning of the Bible. We must take special care, and I realize this example is fairly subtle, to distinguish our voice from that of the people we describe.
 * Whether you agree with these points or not doesn't really matter in this discussion, save to say that even believing everything I've just said, I see no policy argument for deletion. All of this could be addressed via normal editing, which would be the only argument that I can see that would, under policy, permit deletion here.  On that, you are, in my view, spot on.  Thanks.  --joe deckertalk to me 16:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a valid place to use NOT INHERITED. I do not know if the article is used to promote her views in the sense of urging acceptance of them, but it is certainly being used to present them.  DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable except because of her daughter, and notability is not inherited. No substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Agree with others that this article is exclusively a soapbox for an obscure activist with no claim to notability whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a platform for activists. The article contains nothing of encyclopedic value, and can be deleted in its entirety. There really isn't anything to merge anywhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete — I agree with Viriditas and DGG, above. This subject fails WP:GNG (lacks multiple reliable sources substantially treating her with any depth), as well as WP:ANYBIO. Notability can't be WP:INHERITED, and doesn't inhere without more extensive coverage. Any information about this subject that might be encyclopedic would have a place in the Anne Heche article, which is why any coverage of this subject would exist at all. Compare Ann Dunham, who has her own significant, in-depth coverage. Here, by contrast, the handful of unsubstantial coverage beside cites to the subject's memoir are not convincing. JFHJr (㊟) 21:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject certainly appears to have the minimum of coverage required to satisfy the GNG. Worldcat shows extensive library holdings of her writing and coverage in scholarly periodicals, corroborating the evidence of notability. There's way too much irrelevant heat in this discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, using a biographical article as a coatrack for her opinions by citing sources about her book is not an indicator of the notability of an author. She hasn't been the subject of the secondary sources, her books have, and those sources have focused on her anti-gay opinions because they themselves are pushing them as part of their agenda, which does not necessarily make them intellectually independent or independent of the subject, but rather invested in the outcome, i.e. anti-homosexuality. To that end, the subject doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's utter nonsense, having no resemblance to a logical argument. It also requires us to believe that The New York Times is "pushing" an anti-gay agenda, which will come as a huge surprise to anyone who reads its editorial page. As well as Anne Heche pushing an anti-gay agenda by writing about her mother in her own autobiography. You disapprove of the article subject. We get it. You don't need to post illogical harangues in response to anyone who either doesn't share your disapproval or doesn't want Wikipedia to suppress coverage of those they disapprove of. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken the time yet to dig into the sources so I can place my argument to one side or another... but I gotta say that if we're really going to take someone's daughter's autobiography as a source indicating their reliability, then we might as well toss WP:INHERITED out the window for anyone whose child wrote an autobiography. I mean, who doesn't mention their mom in their autobiography? We can't put Anne Heche forward as a source that is independent of her mother. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see HW as having made that argument, but I find I appear to have done so, and have struck a clause from my discussion on the basis of your point. Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 18:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * HW made that argument when he appealed to Anna writing about her mother in her autobiography. Further the NYT article he mentions, is about Anne Heche, not her mother.  Notability isn't inherited.  He also distracted from his mistake by falsely transposing that argument with a separate one, compounding it with several personal attacks.  The NYT article in question clearly calls Nancy Heche a "homophobic mother", so HW's  claim that the NYT is "pushing" an anti-gay agenda is not just a weak straw man, it shows intellectual dishonesty on HW's part. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough about HW. FWIW, I don't share your interpretation of WP:INHERITED, although I believe that there is a plausible ambiguity there due to a single (in my view, misstated) line in it. In my view INHERITED largely is a rule of construction equivalent to "A is notable does not imply that relative(A) is notable". You seem to interpret it as suggesting that we make it harder to prove notability via WP:GNG by eliminating from consideration any source that relates to a relationship with another notable topic".  I believe the existence of Billy Carter demonstrates that my interpretation is more generally accurate, although, to be sure, Nancy Heche is no Billy Carter. --joe deckertalk to me 22:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I would love it if you answered my question up above about why you feel that this article can not reach NPOV via normal editing. --joe deckertalk to me 23:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject fails WP:GNG. It hangs on the coattails of a notable daughter to some extent and needs some in-depth source(s). Stormbay (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How many sources do you think an article needs before its notable? – Lionel (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: just added another 2 more references. For those who are counting, the article now has 9 10 footnotes. Frankly. I don't see how an argument against notability has any merit at this point.– Lionel (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment — WP:LOTSOFSOURCES! JFHJr (㊟) 00:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't apply here. That refers to "trivial mentions." Nancy Heche is the main topic of the sources in the article.– Lionel (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of some of the sources, perhaps; she is clearly not the main topic of the New York Times source, the Derfner source, nor the Engaging Your World source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per JFHJr and DGG. Notability is not inherited. She is mentioned in the press only because of her daughter, not because of her "activism". Relevant info should be merged into Anne Heche article.-- В и к и  T   23:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - No notability independent of her daughter - all citations given feature her in the context of being Anne Heche's mother. Any viable information vis-à-vis their relationship should be briefly summarised in Anne Heche. The article's contributors have added a lot of words to this debate but (IMHO) failed to address the valid points raised by those in favour of deletion. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 17:20, 23 May 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.