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 keep as notable, but several editors raised reasonable issues about the article, including tone and citation of some claims per WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Whitehorn

[edit]

Are criminals typically regarded as notable? I know that there is a 'major edit' tag on this page, but I think the community should decide based on what is here whether this person should be considered notable in and of herself. Perhaps, if she was a key member of any of the organisations of which she was supposedly a member, she should be mentioned in articles about those organisations. Avruch ^Talk 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Laura a criminal is really not the issue, since that statement itself doesn't conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Many, many "criminals" are featured in Wikipedia already because of their impact on society. Being labeled a criminal should never automatically disqualify an article from inclusion.

Laura was part of the Weathermen, a major underground organization that was involved in a number of "terrorist" activities that had a profound affect on the American psyche. If an organization was blowing up buildings today to protest the war in Iraq, you can be sure any of its members would be front page news. Wikipedia has already found her notable enough to include her on the Weatherman page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29. The FBI certainly found her quite notable since they have a large number of documents on her. Several movie makers found her notable enough since she was profiled in a couple of documentaries. I'm not sure how or why we should judge if she was notable enough. Who are we to decide that she's less notable than many other Weathermen members who are included in Wikipedia. This is the beauty of Wikipedia, that you can find out detailed information about subjects that you can't get anywhere else. Censoring this article does no one any good. Especially in this case when a new Wikipedia member has been working on this article for the last few weeks and has been at the computer for over 8 hours today alone trying to get this article published. I strongly believe this article should remain because it is useful, informative and notable. Ubothell1 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your hard work and I don't think it should be completely deleted - but I do think that perhaps the subject is not notable enough individually for a separate article. The FBI has documents on a lot of people, this is not a very strong argument for notability - particularly since most of them are classified, and the rest are confidential prior to a FOIA request. You should investigate the possibility of moving some of this information into the Weatherman article if she is notable enough to be included there (a topic of discussion for the editors of that article). Avruch ^Talk 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a tricky one. I don't think just being one of the Weathermen automatically bequeaths notability. Some 50% of this article just recounts information that's in the group's article. Another bit is sort of her less-notable angle on the events. Then you have a WP:COATRACK-y bit of apologia obviously written by supporters, who have managed to keep her most notable activities out of the lead. I think I would prefer merger to a List of Weatherman members, where a paragraph profile might be appropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and merge into List of Weatherman members per Dhartung. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With due consideration to those who have noted Whitehorn's connection to an organization for which there is already an article ("Weatherman(organization"), there is more to the biography of this living person than even that chapter of her life could convey. The entry as posted speaks to a still-unfolding life of activism, much of which postdates involvement in Weather. It's a phase of a life story that has been deemed substantial enough to warrant a full-length documentary film, among other things. Were this article to be subsumed under Weather, major content and relevance points would be forfeited. While there can always be improvements to an article, I favor giving this one a chance to realize those gains.--Historytrain (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once very notable, though not as notable as some of her comrades--and thus still notable. for WP purposes. The tone of the article is absurdly hagiographic, with considerable elements of coatrack. Someone who doesn't worship her should edit. DGG (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While there may be POV work to be done on the article, I'd encourage a more welcoming approach to new posters than some of this language communicates. --Historytrain (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per both of Historytrain's comments. Don't bite the newcomers folks. And in addition, AfD is not really the place to talk about the tone of an article, that can be done on the article's talk page, or fixed oneself. Murderbike (talk) 19:16, 24 November 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.