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. Removing conspiracy theory material leaves nothing that could be seen as notability, and no other sources were provided. --Coredesat 23:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Standley[edit]

Jane Standley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article only created to POV push conspiracy theory about 9/11. Only barely notable BBC reporter. MONGO 18:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Change to redirect to Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#7_World_Trade_Center or 9/11 Conspiracy Theories It's notable enough to warrant a redirect. The reporter herself is not notable enough for an article. But, I could see people searching Wikipedia for her. Thus, a redirect seems appropriate and a modification to the location where the redirect goes to layout an NPOV statement on the point. --Durin 18:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Non-notable Vanispamcruftisement violating WP:NPOV, based on original research, and lacking verifiability. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tbeatty 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Jane Standley has been an overseas correspondent for the BBC for over 10 years, covering most of the globe in this time. She has been providing editorials for the BBC since 1998. Additional sources need to be found but claiming the article has to go because she is connected to stories conspiracy theorists have taken up is ridiculous. Nuttah68 21:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  She's a reporter. Should we include all reporters that have >10 years experience with their respective media outlets? She's not notable in and of herself. The theory may be notable. She is not. --Durin 21:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This, admitedly, proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) would disagree with you, as would many articles held under Category:Journalists. She is a correspondent with editorial input, not a staffer. The fact that a story she covered has got caught up with a conspiracy theory does not change the notability gained from being a senior BBC overseas correspondent for 10+ years. Nuttah68 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Nuttah68. Additionally, a Google search using the term "jane Standley" BBC returns 15,300 results -- further evidence of her notariety.--MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 08:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - soapbox to promote the latest urban legend about the BBC reporting 9/11 twenty minutes before it happened. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is promoting the conspiracy theory instead of Standley’s career. It violates WP:NPOV bigtime along with other guidelines. Severe POV pushing = delete. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the wise and sagacious MONGO. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.The BBC has put up an utterly pathetic "defence" - even claiming that they have lost the original tapes! (Equivalent to "Please Sir, the dog ate my homework). It is provable FACT that Jane Standley reported WTC7 had collapsed 23 minutes before it did (and while it can still be seen behind her). That alone is quite a claim to fame and should ensure a significant place for her in the annals of broadcasting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viviners (talk • contribs) — Viviners (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Is it even provable that the video is authentic? --Tbeatty 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it certainly is. But that's not what we're debating or discussing here and now-- or is it? ;) --MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 08:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Viviners posted it was a provable fact about some BBC video (which is at the heart of the claims notability). That simply has not been done. But regardless of that, she is still not notable. And the single event people claim she is notable for she doesn't think it was significant enough for her to remember. Seems silly to create an entire biography around an event they don't even remember. --Tbeatty 05:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I don't think it's POV pushing--I doubt this aspect of the article will convince anyone who doesn't believe it already. I think there's enough documentation that shes a notable reporter.DGG 03:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many people will likely be looking up Jane Standley, just as I did today, to learn more about her background in light of the recent controversy regarding the collapse of the Salomon Brothers (Building 7), being reported by her prematurely, in New York on 9/11. Richard Porter, head of News, BBC World, recently reported they "no longer have the original tapes" of their 9/11 coverage[1] adding further fuel to the fire. Standley is notable at this point in time and the article should stay. I also question the personal motivations of the individual who submitted this article as a candidate for deletion.--MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State your "question". Come on, out with it.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The personal motivations of the person who wrote the article are what needs to be questioned here, not mine. This article misrepresnts the actions of this reporter anyway, and since that is a violation of WP:BLP, and she isn't very notable anyway, the article needs to be deleted.--MONGO 13:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. I don't see anything in this article that is remotely biographical. It seems solely created to push some kind of 9/11 conspiracy theory. --Dual Freq 05:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is a valid biographical article, if you have concerns about POV it is a reason to clean it up (I have no objection), not delete. Nuttah68 08:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing notable about this journalist...WP:ATT...aside from a few evidences that she is a reporter, there is nothing notable about her. I suggest you and others wanting to keep such an article start writing articles on every reporter on the planet.--MONGO 10:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't look notable at all. I guess the only reason the article was even created is to promote conspriacy theories about September 11, 2001.--Beguiled 11:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would consider a redirect a BLP violation. Associating her with conspiracy theories is a 'false light' issue and should not be done. --Tbeatty 14:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely.--MONGO 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an excellent point. Very excellent. --Durin 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Live coverage of 9/11 makes her notable in and of itself, similar to Wolf Blitzer becoming notable for his live coverage of Baghdad in 1991. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.29.43.3 (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC).— 128.29.43.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Aude (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.