Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Grace


 * 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 per WP:BLP1E. Chaser (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephanie Grace

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is BLP one event. A prestigious career track with a well known judge, but writing a controversial email is not sufficient to be notable. BLP issues too. There are links, but note that most of the references come from blogs with the exception of the Boston Globe source which is a fair characterization as 1-event. I'm not even sure whether the boston globe source is a web content or newspaper content. Shadowjams (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources cited include the Huffington Post, Associated Press (the reference has since been deleted, however), the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe. The statements in the article can easily be linked to those sources. It is not just the email that is notable, but the response of the Harvard Law Dean, who is a Supreme Court nominee. Also note that this story is only 24 hours old, is continuing to draw media attention, and will likely expand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csm32 (talk • contribs) 02:16, April 30, 2010

Comment: Just a nit, but this is one of a couple of places on this page that refer to Martha Minow as a Supreme Court nominee. That's incorrect. She's reportedly on the short list of possible nominees to replace Justice Stevens. Apologies for my ignorance of the proper place and format for this comment, and no, I don't have a "yea" or "nea" on keeping the main article. (I'd think it's newsworthy enough, but, again, I'm too ignorant of Wikipedia's standards to make an informed judgment.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Leo Marvin (talk • contribs) 01:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that at the very least the admins should hold off on deleting this for a few weeks. It has the potential to develop into something bigger (see: Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy). Roscelese (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The entry has an important error. The email was originally written in October 2009, not during 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.5.238 (talk • contribs) 03:15, April 30, 2010  — 140.247.5.238 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I can edit it to October 2009, but I need a source for that information. The sources I have (and they may be wrong) suggest the email was written in April. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csm32 (talk • contribs) 03:33, April 30, 2010


 * I know personally from one of the people involved in the conversation that originally spurred the email that the conversation and email occurred last October. There is no currently no citable source on this other than various comments in the Above the Law posts on the story.  This link from Boston.com is support for the fact that the email is at least several months old: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/04/e-mail_sparks_a.html.  Again, I know personally from someone involved in the original conversation that the email was sent in October 2009, so to say otherwise is inaccurate, but I can't provide a citable source establishing October as the origination date.  Please at least correct the entry to indicate the email was sent some number of months before it was made public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.15.74 (talk • contribs) 4:02, April 30, 2010


 * Thanks for clarifying, and I'll change the date (just FYI, you can make changes as well by going to "edit this page" on the main article page, tab at top of screen). Csm32 (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The admins, if possible, should prevent deletion of the summary of the content of the email, which IP 140.247.241.12 has continually deleted. The content of the email is what makes it newsworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csm32 (talk • contribs) 4:07, April 30, 2010


 * Comments - First, I indented the comments and added signatures where needed. If I made a mistake doing that, please fix it. Second, discussions about the accuracy of the page should happen on talk page, not here--this is cluttered enough already. Third, the relevant criteria that I should have linked was WP:BIO1E. Despite the claim that the Dean's response is the subject of the article, it's not written that way, nor is it titled that way. Even if it was styled correctly for that, a dean making a statement about a student's comment is hardly notable by itself. Shadowjams (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

When the dean is a supreme court nominee and the student is a future federal clerk for one of the best-known judges, I think it is noteworthy. Further, an article should not be deleted if edits to it can fix weaknesses - if the article isn't "styled" to highlight the dean's e-mail response, and you object to that, you are free to edit the article to include more of the SCOTUS nominee's response, which is linked to.

The Dean is NOT a SCOTUS nominee (even if she was, it would make far more sense to put this information on her page). Wikipedia is not a news reporting agency or personal blog. This seems more like a personal attack than a valuable article.

The Dean IS a candidate: The washington post reports: Few candidates on the list have a more personal connection with Obama than Minow. He reportedly said while he was a senator that he decided on a career in public service because of law professor Minow, who changed his life. It was at Minow's father's law firm in Chicago that Obama met his future wife. An expert in human rights, Minow is a prolific author. She has been on the faculty at Harvard Law since 1981, and she replaced Elena Kagan as dean after Kagan became solicitor general. In 2009, Obama nominated her to the board of the Legal Services Corporation, the government-sponsored organization that provides civil legal assistance to low-income Americans. See the article about her candidacy at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/package/supremecourt/2010candidates/martha-minow.html. Where do you get your information that she isn't a candidate?

This is not an attack, it's an objective report. And the dean is on Obama's short list http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/04/ann_williams_martha_minow_on_o.html http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=azcSsmJTRaPY&pid=20601087 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/04/14/harvard_dean_considered_for_supreme_court/ (Harvard Law dean considered for Supreme Court)


 * Keep. Agree, because it could possibly have impact on the supreme court nominee and has been reported on many news outlets. --68.55.72.211 (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article is about a law student who wrote a private email containing some inflammatory remarks about race, which was leaked.  She was brought before the Holy Office and made to recant her heresy.  An interesting story, to be sure; a tale of betrayal of private trust and the defense of dogmatically defined truths.  But the least significant part of the story is the name of this law student, and she did nothing to seek this kind of publicity for herself.  So far, she is indeed known for only one event, and was not seeking the limelight for that one event. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd also report that the current state of the article does not reflect the tenor of the chief source of the story, which apparently is a "Gawker" website that describes itself as gossip site.  Gawker claims that this entire campaign is the result of a fight between two female students over a boy; and moreover, the leaker has expressed similarly inflammatory statements in student editorials.  All of this suggests to me that l'affaire Grace is not quite going to rank with l'affaire Dreyfus in the history books, although it is an amusing glimpse into the lives of those future legal professionals who've misspent their youths polishing their CVs and credentials to get into Federal clerkships.  Thank God I'm a lawyer in a small firm in a small town. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

IP 140.247.5.139 has erased the content of the email and all parts of the story that made it notable. When this happens, I have been undoing the edits and will continue to do so. I have no wish to edit something added to the article that is objective, fair, and true, but deleting the main parts of the article is malicious and wrong. Csm32 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an article based entirely on an undated email written by a non-noteworthy student to two other students. Some months later, one student decided to publicize the email's contents. The fact that the students involved attend a well-known law school is not enough to transform this into a noteworthy topic. If wiki contained pages for every single minor controversy that garners some news coverage, the site would become entirely useless. It's also worth noting that 95%+ of the edits to the page have been made by CSM32, whose entire wiki history comes as a result of this page.Leuchars (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This has made the 7 o'clock news/msnbc and the Wall Street Journal, along with 200+ other sources. A SCOTUS nominee emailed the HLS community about it, and commented on it along with other high-profile HLS professors and non-HLS professors like blogger Ann Althouse. Grace has a clerkship lined up with the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit. The controversy isn't minor. — Csm32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Please sign your posts, CSM32. I think it was already fairly clear that you were a "keep" vote, given that you're the creator and near-sole contributor to the article. Leuchars (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. As noted above, WP:BLP1E applies here. I don't see lasting notability coming to this woman as a result of one email. —C.Fred (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep She's become as notable/infamous as Kiwi Camara. --Bjoel5785 (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You're back after the 5 months of inactivity. I think this is a clear example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It has almost no relation to this discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to being irrelevant, I don't think the comparison really holds. Kiwi Camara was a child prodigy who published in medical journals at age 11, was the youngest person ever to attend Harvard Law, openly used racial slurs at school, was the subject of a book, and later defended one of the highest profile copyright infringement cases in the country. He was the subject of national press long before he set foot at Harvard and continued to attract national attention afterward as a result of his subsequent activities. In contrast, this person wrote one email that prompted some controversy. Prior to 2 days ago, no one had ever heard of her. Leuchars (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep A search for "Stephanie Grace" "harvard law" returns over 16,000 hits and this story is still developing. The article isn't linked/footnoted YET, but that can be fixed. Many notable people are involved in this controversy, and Stephanie Grace will be clerking for a very public figure. 76.19.118.38 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC) — 76.19.118.38 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, this article should not be deleted under any circumstances. Grace is not a child who doesn't know what she's saying. Nor is she someone on-track to have a low-influence legal career. She's clerking for a circuit court judge; she's on-track to hold positions and shape laws that will affect the very people she thinks aren't "intelligent." Her views are who she is, and people have a right to know (or find out later) what those views are. I don't know what's more appalling--that Grace thought her views were acceptable and accurate...or that so many people want to let her off the hook because she's young and presumably helpless/unknowing. Wikipedia is about truth, and covering up the truth of who this woman is not what this site should be about.--deering — Deering24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Political views are not a reason to delete or keep a page. Instead, please look at WP:Notability to understand what this site is about. Shadowjams (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that this isn't an encyclopedia "article", it's an unadorned dishing of dirt. If this woman merited a bio then maybe this could be put in under it. But since  it tells us nothing about her, other than she has (IMO) nutty ideas, it is hard to know why she merits attention. The article seems to have no other informative purpose or substance than to do a private individual's laundry in public. Perhaps it would merit a news article in a local paper or blog in her Judge's District -- if it is not libel. But it is not a Wikipedia article.
 * Delete As User:Ihcoyc says above, "...the least significant part of the story is the name of this law student, and she did nothing to seek this kind of publicity for herself." A private individual's statements do not make the individual notable simply because the statements are ignorant and/or reprehensible, and ended up being publicized. That this individual might one day have a position of influence is not relevant today. At present, the statures of Harvard Law School and Judge Alex Kozinski are the reasons this story has turned into a scandal. It wouldn't get any attention if Ms. Grace weren't a 3L from a top echelon school and hadn't been chosen by one of the nation's top judges for a clerkship. Yes, the story is still developing and may lead to notable outcomes, in which case those outcomes might merit a WP entry with relevant details. --AslamKarachiwala (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean I don't think that a woman holding racialist views clerking for a judge is of grave concern. But she is not a public figure, and the article is way too incendiary and too potentially libelous to let pass without some justifying substance, and without significant substantiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.106.214 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, per User:Ihcoyc. This is just pathetic. Chensiyuan (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete: This a private affair that has blown out of proportions. Wikipedia should be politically neutral, and this crusade against Grace is not. There is even political blogs that encourage people contributing on wikipedia to keep this article. If wikipedia decides not to remove the entire content than at least it should be placed under Sociobiology or what other issues she is touching with her controversial musing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.144.208 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Having moved beyond blogs this person now figures within newspapers; additional MSM such as Fox News and MSNBC are likely. By definition that makes this person and this article newsworthy. This isn't about the relative famousness of the people within Wikipedia but whether or not the person has made news. By appearing in the news that hurdle has been cleared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.39.119.245 (talk • contribs) 22:42, May 3, 2010 — 99.39.119.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Yeah, you're right. Weird because the IP wasn't added... they added it when they made the edit. Shadowjams (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This actually has already made MSNBC (in response to the "keep" vote above. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36862758/ Csm32 (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As mentioned several times already, "whether or not the person has made news" is not the appropriate standard. Per WP:BLP1E: "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Leuchars (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Grace is not likely to remain a low-profile individual, she will be drafting opinions for Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. With the exception of a SCOTUS clerkship, a federal clerkship is the highest profile position a recent law graduate can aspire to. Csm32 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In and of itself, having a clerkship is neither notable nor "high profile" in the sense that that language is describing. There are literally thousands of law students who take federal clerkships every year, including several hundred at the CoA level. There's a reason that the vast, vast majority of federal clerks don't have their own wiki pages. Moreover, abstract predictions about what she might eventually do after she leaves a job that she hasn't even started are insufficient to warrant a page. Leuchars (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are fewer than 50 clerks (far fewer, if each chief judge takes 2 clerks for a total of 26) who land a position with a chief judge, and Kozinski is one of the best-known judges. So, placing Grace among "thousands" of clerks is misleading. Csm32 (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Most CoA Judges hire 4 clerks per year, not 2. Either way, it's entirely irrelevant to the larger point. Look at the List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Since he took his seat, Chief Justice Roberts has had 20 clerks. Exactly zero have wiki pages, and I doubt many would argue that it should be otherwise. Clerking in and of itself is not notable enough to warrant a wiki page, particularly not for a CoA judge. The fact that the subject of the article has been offered a clerkship is not enough to shoehorn this WP:BLP1E into an article. Leuchars (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to make note here that I put a Keep suggestion up yesterday or the day before and it has been deleted. It looks like several other Keep suggestions have been deleted as well. Pistolina (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Edited to make it clear that I am aware these are not votes in the majority sense)
 * Comment. You have made only two edits from that account, both within eight minutes of each other today. Accordingly, there is no !vote that has been deleted as you allege. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've just checked the page history to be sure and can't see anything that's been deleted, though one !vote was moved to keep things in order. If you want to check yourself, click on "View history" near the top of the page.  The edits are listed in reverse order and show the number of bytes so you can easily find the few times a little bit has been deleted (usually someone editing their own comment). --Zeborah (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep. The notoriety is on a large-scale level of discussion now far removed from gossip blogs and in mainstream news media as well as meriting large scale public relations work form HLS. It seems well worth the keep as the story breaks. Elefuntboy (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * None of that changes 1Event reasons nor does any of that coverage have much to do with the individual rather than the incident. Not to mention the privacy concerns discussed above. Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC
 * Comment: There are no privacy concerns at this point - her name has been reported by multiple news sources including the Boston Globe. Furthermore, there are no libel concerns as long as the objective language of the email is reported, absent subjective judgment. The article, as it stands, it a reporting of the facts. Truth is a defense against libel - i.e., x is not libelous if x is true. I'm a litigator (unfortunately), so I know from whence I speak. 76.19.118.38 (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I too know "from whence I speak"... I'm not making legal claims about privacy either way (although I've rarely met litigators as confident about a legal opinion as that). More claims of reasonableness. That's not necessary though since aside from the legal blog reaction, there is nothing to indicate this "story" has legs outside of a few scattered news reports, or even if the story was notable, that the individual is notable under any of those sources. Instead, I'm seeing a flurry of brand new or seldom used accounts, or IPs, that have commented on this AfD. I still haven't heard a compelling argument why this individual is notable as we use that term on Wikipedia. Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This could explain the number of SPAs: Since just moments after you opened this AfD, there have been people posting on several popular blogs about the proposed deletion, urging others to come here and "vote Keep" so as to "hold Stephanie accountable for her hate speech." See http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/04/29/stephanie-grace-racist-harvard-emailer/#comment-304692, http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/04/29/stephanie-grace-racist-harvard-emailer/#comment-304715, http://stephaniegraceharvard.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-should-we-care.html#comments, http://www.feministing.com/archives/021019.html#comment-341211, http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/04/30/the-racist-breeding-grounds-of-harvard-law-school/#comment-305117 Leuchars (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read all of the links you cite above, and NONE of them contain the words "vote Keep." In fact, none of them use the word "vote" at all. If you're going to quote, please do so correctly. 76.19.118.38 (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC) — 76.19.118.38 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * My apologies, it was "suggest Keep," not "vote Keep." Not sure how much that changes the underlying purpose of the comment, which was to ask others who would like the subject of the article to be "accountable for her hate speech" to come here and "suggest" that this article be kept. Given that the vast majority of the edits to the article have come from a small handful of users who have never posted on anything other than this topic, I think it's certainly worth taking into consideration. Leuchars (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is well sourced, important, and part of a larger conversation about systematic racism at Harvard Law School and other influential institutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncwillard (talk • contribs) 15:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Then I believe it should be added to that larger conversation.  I'm sure there's an article about systemic racism or IQ/Race correlation somewhere on here...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.131.130.17 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I think it's critical that the Stephanie Grace entry be included and expanded. This debate over her email gives us a window into the thinking of a future judge. As a member of the Harvard Law Review with a federal clerkship, she's likely to serve as one of the nation's judges and will craft our laws, including future intrepretations of the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, the ADEA, etc.
 * Clearly Grace brings a great deal of value to the jurisprudence and I found her email thoughtful.
 * The entire body of her email should be included, and it would be interesting to add links to any of her published law articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviator33 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)  — Aviator33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete If wikipedia published every private email that any student wrote who has an outside chance of possibly twenty years in the future having some publicly visible position, then the website would not be useful. This article seems to be contributed mainly by one person.  Who's to say that is not the same person that originally forwarded the email and pledged to "ruin her life"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.131.130.17 (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think the way in which the email was made public is "good," but wiki notability isn't determined by how a story became public, it's determined by, inter alia, whether it is public and whether people are interested in it. Regardless of how the e-mail made national news, the point is that it DID become national news. Whatever motivations led the person to leak it are irrelevant (and if the article expands, that person could very well be named in the article as she has been named in news media). I'm sorry about my extensive comments on this issue; I've tried to respond with what I think are logical points and hope I'm not becoming a nuisance. 76.19.118.38 (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with your point, but that's exactly it...the story is public...the email is public. Stephanie Grace is NOT a notable person.  Who is more likely to end up a Supreme Court Justice or President of the U.S.?  Stephanie Grace, a standard Harvard Law Review Editor of whom there are 40 per year?  Or Zachary Schauf, HLS class of '11, and now the current PRESIDENT of Harvard Law Review?  I don't see a wikipedia entry for him.  Nor do I see an entry for Joanna Huey, the past president of Harvard Law Review.  The only reason Stephanie Grace is notable is for a personal email she wrote.  I will admit that her email is notable, but should there really be a Wikipedia Article "Stephanie Grace's Controversial Email"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.131.130.17 (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment As I've noted on the discussion page, a line was recently added to the article by Andy4U2 which I think is too subjective, calling the email racist and misogynistic. I started the article and attempted to make it as objective as possible. When I added back the text of the email after Andy4U@'s edit and voiced my concern (in the discussion page) that the addition of "racist" and "misogynistic" was too subjective and prejudicial, the text of the email was erased. I don't want to get into an editing war by continually adding back the text of the email, only to have it erased again by Andy4U2, which is a SPU account. Wiki should stick to the facts, and interpretation is not fact. Csm32 (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These kinds of concerns should be reserved for the article's talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2010 (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.