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.
With the utmost sympathy for the woman in question, I do not think Mary Norris meets our notability requirements. She's a victim of the Irish Magdalene Asylum system, she has spoken about her life to the Irish Independent newspaper, and gets a few g.hits as a named victim of the Magdalenes. All of which is insufficient for me. --Tagishsimon(talk) 00:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon(talk)00:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, while the story is tragic, it's sadly not particularly unusual, and she doesn't appear to have done anything particularly noteworthy. By long consensus going right back to the deletion of individual articles on 9/11 victims back in Nupedia days, victimhood in and of itself has never been considered grounds for notability on Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent15:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject clearly passes GNG and is written about over time in several RS:
The Independent 1999, entire article about her life and experiences
Keep in the strongest terms. First of all, there are clearly more than adequate sources covering this person's life. Second, she is notable for being one of the people to tell the tale of these institutions, thus blowing open this dark episode of history. Finally, I am absolutely floored that the nominator of this AfD labeled such a courageous survivor so condescendingly as a "victim," which absolutely diminishes her very humanity and belittles the very real suffering she endured and the courage it took to talk about it and tell the world. Unbelievable. To make a "victim" "insufficient"? Criminy, let's just "victimize" her all over again by minimizing and invalidating her whole life! (grumble, grumble, grumble...) Why don't we just delete all the articles on "victims of bad things" like, oh, slaves and holocaust survivors next? (<--that last sentence is intended as scathing sarcasm, for anyone who is not certain of my meaning) Sheesh! Montanabw(talk)17:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you already know the answer to that; we don't include articles on slaves or holocaust survivors as a matter of course, but only if they've done something to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, any more than we host biographies of army veterans just because they fought in a notable battle unless they've either achieved notability independent of their military service, or their military service was extraordinary enough to be notable in its own right. I'm willing to be persuaded if the sources can be found to demonstrate that she's independently noteworthy, but if you're already scrabbling around with sources like the Mirror (which makes the Daily Mail look like the New York Times) I'm not convinced her status is anything more than "spokeswoman for a particular group of survivors". ‑ Iridescent17:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So we don't cover whistleblowers if they are "victims", are only the perpetrators are notable? Seriously? Shall we delete Elie Wiesel because he mostly wrote about his own experience in concentration camps and urged people to never forget? How about Frederick Douglass because he mostly was a writer about his "victimhood" too? (yes, that is sarcasm, I am not advocating these articles be deleted) I am, quite sincerely, failing to understand your logic. This person is one who has come forward to write and speak out... Megalibrarygirl is working quite hard on expansion and has listed multiple respected sources above, including The New York Times.Montanabw(talk)18:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Tagishsimon and Iridescent that victimhood alone doesn't confer notability. However, in this particular case, I believe there is a claim to notability as Mary Norris is one of the few vocal survivors who is actively trying to raise awareness about this. For example, from this, "Some of the most powerful views of the twentieth century Magdalen Asylums come from former penitents like Mary Norris, who now works to memorialize the Magdalens by speaking out about her experience and establishing a memorial with the names and birthdates of penitents who died in the Laundries and were buried in mass graves." Another claim is this Irish Examiner article which says "The headstone and names were only placed on the grave by the Order following a campaign by a former resident of the laundry, Mary Norris, in the late 1990s.". In addition, the subject passes GNG quite easily. Victimhood alone is never a criteria, but notable victims (particularly those who campaign to bring awareness) generally have their own articles. See Song Sin-do, Liu Huang A-tao and Kim Hak-sun for similar examples. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the article doesn't yet focus on the level of work by her into calling to attention the details of the laundry experiences and memorialise those who died there. But since it was being worked on and the references mention these attributes, I believe it does meet notability and a google search does being this up. Based on the "General notability guideline" an article on this woman meets each, there is coverage in reputable independent sources across various periods in time. ☕ Antiqueighthaver23:00, 10 June 2016 (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.