Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Lynn Thornton


 * 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. Why no-consensus rather than keep? Because there is no doubt that current events are feeding the news cycle. And there isn't a clear consensus between keeping it as a standalone or covering it within one of the Roe articles or that of her birth mother. That said, there's absolutely no argument put forward for deletion. If this cannot be resolved editorially, suggest a discussion when it's not a heated news topic. Star  Mississippi  15:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Shelley Lynn Thornton

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

A textbook example of inherited notability from someone she's never even met. Outside of sharing DNA with a lawsuit plaintiff, the subject has never done anything of note GNG-wise. If anything, this should simply be a redirect to her birth mother Norma McCorvey's page with the info included there. Kbabej (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC) *Redirect to Roe_v._Wade. I think she is notable. Notable for one event. That event being the subject of a court case. She was born before the case was argued, so this isn't about inheriting things, the event happened in her life time. So we should merge into the event article. I'm open to being persuaded if there is some privacy concern or if I've missed something, but the way it's been presented above is as if she was born after the course case. CT55555 (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 27.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Norma_McCorvey. Per nom, per Beccaynr, and no attempt to seek consensus before undoing the earlier redirect for lack of notability. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC) and specific redirect target The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep She is notable for one event, but now that others have shown she is a high profile individual, going on media about her experiences, then I change my vote to keep. CT55555 (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E includes, 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. In the linked explanatory essay, characteristics of high- versus low-profile figures are described, and includes, Typically notable or would-be notable for roles of various levels of importance in more than a single major event, or for a major role in one major event. Thornton is quoted as stating, "My association with Roe started and ended because I was conceived" (NBC, 2021, churnalism of the book about her family that was excerpted in The Atlantic), so it does not appear she is promoting herself as having a major role in one major event, and there also does not appear to be coverage of her outside of the single event to which she eventually learned she is connected. She therefore appears to otherwise remain low-profile and likely to remain low-profile.
 * I am also concerned about the use of non-independent interviews to generate content for this article, including because while I edited the three articles where this content appears per the sources to clarify her allegations are "according to Thornton", her apparent allegations are still presented as fact in this discussion and may create an appearance of encyclopedic content contrary to our policies and guidelines. The application of WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTGOSSIP may also help trim content, and WP:NOTNEWS and its relationship to WP:BLP1E appears to be a key consideration for determining what to do with this article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've not had time to go through the sources. As I see it, she was notable for being the subject of the court case and notable if decades later she did interviews about it. Are you saying she did do interviews (i.e. therefore not being low profile) or just a brief one (therefore maybe borderline low profile)? CT55555 (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the explanatory essay, it does not appear she has roles of various levels of importance in more than a single major event, or for a major role in one major event. Beccaynr (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect or just cut and paste into the Roe_v._Wade article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nomination seems to read like it says the subject of the article has never met her own biological mother, which is confusing me. CT55555 (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears they have spoken on the phone but perhaps not met in person after being separated by adoption. --N8wilson 🔔 00:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm missing something, but surely they met when McCorvey gave birth to Thornton? CT55555 (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That's why I clarified with above. :-) --N8wilson 🔔 00:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article uses that terminology and I incorporated it. They’ve never met as adults; her mother gave her away at birth. Not sure being born is counted as “meeting”, but at least Norma didn’t consider it that way (at least how the article is currently written). —Kbabej (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * They never met in person (other than at birth). They spoke on the telephone several times.  They were planning to meet.  Two things happened that "thwarted" the (proposed) in-person meeting.  One: the daughter got a "weird feeling" that the mother was just using her to make money and/or to exploit / profit from the situation (the "fame" from Roe).  She asked:  McCorvey wants to meet me ... and make a big public spectacle about it.  How come she is not interested in meeting her other two adopted children?  She's just interested in meeting her "Roe baby".   So, it didn't sit well with her.  Then, their phone calls became contentious.  Two:  During one of these contentious phone calls, the mother said "you should thank me for not aborting you" ... when, ironically, that is exactly what she was attempting to do (i.e., abort her).  This comment incensed the daughter who, at that point, decided she had no interest in meeting the mother.  Later on, the daughter was notified that the mother was on her death-bed.  The daughter (mentally) went back-and-forth, debating whether or not she wanted to meet the mother (before she died).  She ultimately decided not to meet her ... and, later, said that she had no regrets with that decision.      Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * KEEP - She's clearly notable. (Now more than ever.)  She (inadvertently or not) was the "cause" / "reason" / "impetus" for one of the most -- if not, the most -- controversial and divisive Supreme Court cases in history.   There are plenty of RS's.  (I will list those later.)   She "put herself" out in the public.  She gave interviews, TV appearances, etc., on the very issue of "being the Roe baby".  She stated that she felt "she was used as a political pawn" by both sides in the abortion debate.  A book about her was a Pulitzer Prize finalist.  We could cut-and-paste this info into the Norma McCorvey article or into the Roe v. Wade article ... but I fear the "section" would be "too long".  Hence, the need for a dedicated article.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Joseph A. Spadaro, I think you used the phrase I was looking for: "being the Roe baby". That simply isn't enough to establish notability. Is she somehow known outside of this? The article is only in relation to her connection to her bio mother, which could not be a more quintessential example of notability not being inherited. --Kbabej (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I guess we disagree. I think she's notable ... yes, for being the "Roe baby".  Apparently, dozens of other RS's also think she's notable.  (See below.)  Local, national, and international coverage. For a non-notable person?  Now, that seems quite odd.  Why are Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Italy, etc., reporting on non-notable people?   Hmmmmmmm ... seems odd.  Yeah, she's related to Norma McCorvey / Jane Roe.  But, in and of itself, that's not why she's notable.  She was thrust into a unique/odd situation ... and her conception (essentially) catapulted the abortion debate and led to the most controversial / divisive US Supreme Court decision, ever.  More so, now, with the Dobbs reversal of Roe.  Yes, actually being Baby Roe is notable. If not, why are news outlets broadcasting her views, feelings, reactions to Roe and Dobbs?  They're not covering my reactions.    Of course, she's related to McCorvey ... but she's not "inheriting" notability from her.  But, rather, from her fortunate/unfortunate thrust into this national/international conundrum.  Sort of like when a baby is born to Prince William and Kate.  They basically are notable just for being born.  (And, of course, the ancillary distinctions of being in the line of succession, etc.)  Same basic idea.  It was her conception/circumstances that make her notable.  In my opinion.  And dozens of RS's.  Why would someone write a book about her, interview her, do an expose on her?  Because of the notable circumstances of her conception/birth/pregnancy/intended abortion.  If we don't want a bio of her, let's name the article "Conception of Shelley Thornton".  Is that notable?      Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Joseph A. Spadaro, yes, we disagree. All the sources you've listed below (three of which I've struck, btw, per WP:RSP) are covering Shelley only in relation to the bio relationship to her mother, a woman she has never known or met as an adult. There's simply nothing beyond that one connection. She hasn't even done any advocacy surrounding Roe, even according to the WP article on her. The article goes so far as to state "Thornton stated that she was neither pro-life nor pro-choice." I don't see how it can get more milquetoast than that. --Kbabej (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * See: Biological daughter of 'Jane Roe' slams Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, saying it has been 'too many times' that a woman's choice 'has been decided for her by others'. As of three hours ago, she took a strong stand.  Not milquetoast at all.  Quite the opposite.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Norma McCorvey, per WP:BLP1E, where there already is a sourced section about her. I disagree with a redirect to Roe v. Wade, where there does not appear to be a logical place to add the content about her. Even though content is currently included in the Roe v. Wade article, in the Later responses by those involved section, I do not think content that is not about the court decision should be included in that section. The content in the Roe v. Wade article focuses on her reaction to her birth mother, her political feelings generally, and biographical information, and appears to be the same or similar content in the Norma McCorvey article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:BLAR – While WP:NOTEWORTHY for mom's article, there isn't enough their there to make her WP:NOTABLE on her own. If or when a secondary source writes about her as a person, and perhaps how the discovery of her mother has impacted the world she can get her own article. (Indeed, perhaps there is info about her father that can go in McCorvey's article.) But not now. – S. Rich (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You state: If or when a secondary source writes about her as a person, and perhaps how the discovery of her mother has impacted the world she can get her own article.  Already done.  Plenty of RS's.  She did book / TV interviews about this.  A Pulitzer Prize book (finalist) was written about "her" and "this".  So, as I stated, ... what you requested has already been done.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Joseph A. Spadaro The book isn't about her. The book is about Norma, Roe v. Wade, the aftermath, and the impact. The book's article on WP doesn't even mention Shelley, and I seriously doubt it covers her with any sigcov whatsoever. --Kbabej (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Not true. The author spent 10-11 years on this book.  He knew that "abortion" (as a general topic) was very divisive.  He wanted to get "below the surface" of the issue.  He wanted all of us (the general public) to see and to meet the "real-life" effects of this phenomenon.  He wanted to "delve into" who these people really were, as people.  Not just as a plaintiff, defendant, etc, ... in cold and clinical legal terms.  He studied in-depth all of the "people" ... Norma, her family, her kids, her lovers, the lawyers, the adoptive parents, etc., etc., etc.  I have not yet read the book.  So I did not add a lot of details into the book's article.  I read many, many reviews about the book.  And they all basically say what I just stated above.  And call the book a "masterpiece".  So, I disagree with your assessment.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "Prager talks through his book The Family Roe: An American Story, centered on the woman who was the baby at the center of the landmark Roe v. Wade trial." The book is "centered" on Thornton.  Source: The Realities Of Abortion Politics In 'Family Roe: An American Story' & 'Red Clocks'.      Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have addressed that below in my review of sources. Beccaynr (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Joseph A. Spadaro, I stand corrected. Yes, the book covers Shelley. I did not initially think so because of the book's WP page. It's behind a paywall (it was only published last year, so no suprise there), but in Google books it'll give a three-line preview of each mention within the book (seen here). I thought perhaps I had misunderstood her involvement. Having reviewed all 67 mentions in the book (it only takes a bit because, again, it's only three lines apiece), I can confidently say I haven't missed the mark in my overall assessment that there is no notability here outside of her birth mother/being born. There's no coverage of contributions, activism, a career - it doesn't even mention if she works. It's simply only in relation to Norma.
 * This may be getting into the weeds, but out of Shelly's 67 mentions, ~39 (so ~58%) are actually index mentions, and some of those aren't even about her ("Shelly's conception", "Shelly's bio father") and the others are simply a reference for what is already included in the book ("Shelly's interview with author, X date"). So out of the ~28 mentions left of content, it gets even smaller when Prager you break it down by paragraph. In one three-line snippet, Prager uses the name four times (!). I don't think I need to go into the math on that. To summarize, it's a lot of name mentions without any real content. I agree with @Beccaynr's assessment of the sources, in that this is basically WP:BLP1 with a lot of churnalism. --Kbabej (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about uploading photo's, copyrights, etc. But here is a photo of the Index of the book ... under the relevant section of "Shelley Lynn Thornton": .      Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Even better than my snippets. That is exactly what I meant. There's nothing there regarding any activism, contributions, work, awards, etc. Nothing that would satisfy WP:NBIO. She fails 1-3 of the "Any bio" section, and none of the others really apply since she hasn't actually done anything. --Kbabej (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thinking out loud, but yeah, I doubt we can have that considering it'd be under copyright. Striking part of my comment about it being "perfect" above. --Kbabej (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - In support of my KEEP "!vote!" ... Shelley Lynn Thornton issues a public statement, slamming the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe. She is now (more vocally) getting involved and entering the public debate.  Source: Biological daughter of 'Jane Roe' slams Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, saying it has been 'too many times' that a woman's choice 'has been decided for her by others'.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Plenty of coverage to meet GNG and stand alone from the article regarding her biological mother. And the fact that she is continuing to speak on relevant issues seems to only further this conclusion. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: She has sufficient news coverage for notability and (although unwilling) played a part in a landmark Supreme Court ruling. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Partial list of reliable sources: local, national, international coverage
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ABC News:
 * New York Post:
 * People Magazine:
 * The Atlantic:
 * Business Insider:
 * Newsweek Magazine:
 * Television interview with ABC News' Linsey Davis:
 * Biography - Pulitzer Prize Finalist: The Family Roe: An American Story
 * NBC News:
 * NPR:
 * International News, Great Britain, The Independent:
 * International News, Ghana:
 * MSN:
 * Forbes:
 * The Huffington Post:
 * The Seattle Times:
 * International News, Spain:
 * Washington Examiner:
 * International News, Sweden:
 * The Denver Gazette:
 * International News, Telemundo:
 * International News, France:
 * International News, Italy:
 * International News, Great Britain, The Telegraph:
 * CBS News:
 * International News, Poland:
 * Striking unreliable sources (but not removing links) per WP:RSP. For specific sections, see WP:NYPOST, WP:BI, and WP:NEWSWEEK respectively. --Kbabej (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Newsweek is not reliable? Never knew that.  I thought they were a highly respected magazine?!?!?!?!??       Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Joseph A. Spadaro, it's sad, right? Alas, they used to be reliable and respected pre-2013, but after their ownership changed, apparently their editorial standards tanked. It's too bad! --Kbabej (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It is sad. I never knew that until now.  Way back in the 1980's ... my (private) high school "forced" all of the students to buy a subscription to Newsweek.  Back then, it was a respected and esteemed news magazine, on par with Time.  Indeed, very sad ... for what became of it.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You should reply to people's comments, if you think the sources are not reliable, you should not strike other people's comments. CT55555 (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @CT55555, fair! Will do going forward. --Kbabej (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't mind the strike-outs. They were actually helpful.  And well-intentioned.  And, I learned something!     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw the good intention. It's just very unusual to edit each others good-faith comments with a strike out. Strike outs usually indicate someone withdrew a comment, or they were banned. Anyway, it's not a big deal, so best wishes to everyone, peace etc. CT55555 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Review of sources
I have not yet reviewed all of the sources listed above, but this is a start of adding information that may be helpful to this discussion:
 * The Roe Baby (The Atlantic. Sept. 9, 2021, adapted from the Prager book), Identity of 'Roe baby' revealed after decades of secrecy (NBC News, Sept. 9, 2021, churnalism of Atlantic article, referred to as an excerpt); 'Roe Baby' At Center Of Landmark Abortion Case Is Identified For 1st Time (HuffPost, Sept. 9, 2021, churnalism of the Atlantic); ‘Roe baby’ whose conception sparked landmark abortion ruling comes forward to share her name — and her story (2021) (Seattle Times/Washington Post reprint, Sept. 10, 2021, churnalism of the Atlantic); 'Roe baby' identity finally revealed (Washington Examiner, Sept. 9, 2021, churnalism of the Atlantic, reprinted in The Denver Gazette) Roe v Wade: What happened to the baby that divided America? (The Telegraph, Sept. 11, 2021, appears to be commentary, based on the Atlantic), The "Roe Baby" reveals identity as half-sister speaks to CBS News about their mother's legacy (CBS News, Sept. 9, 2021, churnalism of Atlantic, otherwise focused on Mills interview), ‘Roe Baby’ Speaks Out For The First Time Amid Renewed Abortion Debate (Forbes, Sept. 9, 2021, churnalism of the Atlantic), La bebé que cambió la historia de EE.UU. desvela su identidad y habla sobre el aborto (Telemundo, NBC News reprint, Sept. 9, 2021)
 * Daughter of 'Jane Roe,' the woman behind the landmark abortion case, comes to terms with her identity (ABC News, Oct. 4, 2021, based on an interview, includes Thornton's statement, "the actions of Norma are not mine", and "I had nothing to do with it"). Daughter of Jane Roe Has 'No Regrets' About Never Meeting Her Birth Mother After Landmark Abortion Case (People, Oct. 4, 2021, churnalism of the ABC News interview, also refers to the Prager book), Roe v Wade baby breaks her silence: ‘I was just a pawn’ (Independent, Oct. 4, 2021, churnalism of ABC News interview, mentions Prager book), La storia di “baby Roe”, figlia della legge sull’aborto in America (Tempi, Oct. 9, 2021, ABC interview, Atlantic, and National Enquirer churnalism)
 * Shelley, la hija que Jane Roe no pudo abortar en EEUU: la Ley llegó después (El Espanol, May 7, 2022, churnalism of the Atlantic article, National Enquirer, references the ABC interview).
 * In 'The Family Roe:' the human side of the landmark abortion case 'Roe v. Wade' (NPR, May 9, 2022, interview with Prager, intro states, "The baby, often referred to as Baby Roe, is Shelly Lynn Thornton, now a grown woman whose story is at the center of Joshua Prager's book The Family Roe."). Previous interview with Prager: Author Tells The Story Of The Family At The Center Of Landmark Case 'Roe V. Wade' (NPR, Sept. 18, 2021, "PRAGER: Well, the family really refers here to two different families. There's the family that Norma had - Norma - a broken family, Norma and the three children she relinquished to adoption. But then there's also the much larger family, as I see it - the tens of millions of people who are on either side of this issue." [...] "And it's not only that Shelley does believe that abortion ought to be legal. She also wants people to know, as she puts it, that she is not a symbol for one side of this issue.")
 * Daughter of 'Jane Roe' issues statement on Supreme Court's ruling (ABC News Live Updates, June 27, 2022, reprints her statement), what is described as MSN above is a reprint of the June 27, 2022 Business Insider article.
 * The source described above as International News, France appears to be a blog for an organization
 * Beccaynr (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC) - sources added Beccaynr (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC) - sources added, content rearranged Beccaynr (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)  - sources added Beccaynr (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Per WP:SIGCOV fn 4 It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Based on my research and the review of sources in this discussion, the most significant coverage is the one book based on interviews with Thornton. In the Atlantic article summary, there is a vague reference to legal issue of mootness in Roe v. Wade before the author of the book notes, "The pro-life community saw the unknown child as the living incarnation of its argument against abortion. It came to refer to the child as “the Roe baby.”" The author describes the broad scope of their book in the Atlantic article, and a close review of the Wikipedia article raises WP:NPOV questions about how certain quotes are added to this and other articles, which can be further discussed on relevant Talk pages.
 * For this discussion, there does not appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, because in addition to the book and the summary article, there is one interview with ABC News, tabloid reporting in the National Enquirer ("considered generally unreliable" per WP:RSP), and a recent press release. Everything else appears to be a form of churnalism that does not count as multiple works, either following one of these sources, combining sources, or are the book author continuing to promote their work in nonindependent NPR interviews.
 * Per WP:BLP1E, it also appears that Thornton became involuntarily promoted by the anti-abortion movement, as detailed in the Atlantic article, and per the WP:LOWPROFILE explanatory essay, she appears to have initially been subject to "ambush journalism", and she is Often allegedly notable only for a minor role in one major event, both of which are characteristics of a low-profile individual. The Prager book tells her story in the context of her birth mother's story, and without additional significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, a redirect to her birth mother's article seems best supported by the sources, policy, and guidelines at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The New York Times published Seeing Norma: The Conflicted Life of the Woman at the Center of Roe v. Wade by Joshua Prager on July 2, 2022, and this article does not mention Thornton at all - it does state, "(During my decade of research for “The Family Roe,” a book on Roe and its plaintiff, I spent hundreds of hours interviewing McCorvey.)" and at the end of the article, the book is described as "a dual biography of Roe v. Wade and its plaintiff." There does not appear to be any reason to consider the Prager book, Prager articles, and Prager interviews as more than one source when assessing WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability for Thornton, and it may be helpful for !voters asserting GNG notability to further explain how the available sources support a standalone article according to our policies and guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2022 (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.