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. The controversy is notable, which is really the subject of the article. Whether the article should be retitled to something other than her name is not a AFD. The BLP issues raised are not persuasive: the contentious claims are all sourced, and she has projected herself into the controversy rather than being a non-participant swept up in events beyond her control. Carlossuarez46 03:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article is a WP:COATRACK created about this person only after an article in the New York Times questioned the veracity of many claims she had made about being a survivor of the 9/11 attack. This article seems contrary to WP:BLP, but I leave it to the Wikipedia community to discuss it and decide. She did not seem to have encyclopedic notability before the expose. Per WP:NOT#NEWS, not everyone who is in the newspapers needs an encyclopedia article. Edison 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's a permissible option, defer closure for 2-3 weeks on this to see if notability develops or dissipates. It's too early, I think, to tell one way or the other. --Nlu (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup and keep. (started the article) This article wasn't meant as and doesn't need to be a coat rack. WP:BLP states "material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious." It's contentious, that's true; but all of the above policies listed are being strongly followed (with the possible exception of neutrality). She "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" so we know that she's notable. Regarding WP:NOT#NEWS, is the NY Times article considered "tabloid journalism"? Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key to the nomination above is that she has no independent notability, and "15 minutes of fame" isn't enough to make someone notable. I think we'd have to see if this story persists or not. --Nlu (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But she was in the public eye before the scandal broke. She certainly had "independent notability since she's been written up in publications that have nothing to do with her or organizations with which she participated. But perhaps her 15mins is almost up -- that's a valid argument for removal. My opinion is still the same though: keep. ask123 19:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is sad that this person is (likely, it seems) a hoax and is likely to become an Internet meme, but she clearly did it to herself. Her notability before the hoax discovery was marginal but close to "notable enough". There were a few frauds near the time of the 9/11 event, but she pulled her hoax off for years. We have not had a word or figure for that yet, but she is it. From now on, anybody looking for sympathy by talking at length about their story who then insists that being held accountable for specifics of their story is "too painful" is going to be associated with this person. Journalists failed to do their job by accepting an excuse like that. Just like Alan Mcilwraith, Essjay, Jimmy Wales as the sole founder of Wikipedia® and so many other imposters.--Mightyms 15:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC) — Mightyms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. This article from The New York Times that appeared on Sept. 27, 2007 about Tania Head and her possible deception: Tania Head Article from The New York Times. I'm sure you all have seen it. This "siginficant coverage" from a "reliable," "independent" source qualifies her as "notable" per Wikipedia:Notability. ask123 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She's clearly been the focus of independent, credible sources and BLP doesn't prohibit the writing of material which puts living people in a poor light, but says such statements have to have such sources. She lived a lie for years, for instance she was featured in this [1] TIME article from 2004 saying '"People cannot understand. We saw things," says Tania Head, who was injured while evacuating. "We had to make life-or-death decisions. The higher the floor, the more lonely you were. I can't get rid of my fear that it's going to happen again." She was prominent in an organisation set up for those who survived the terrorist attacks and appeared to revel in the publicity. It doesn't matter that she didn't have an article before this story broke. What matters is whether she's notable enough for an article now, and she clearly is. Nick mallory 15:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete First of all, having 1 article about her in the NY Times is not "significant" coverage. Secondly, the Times article was not ABOUT her, but merely mentioned her in passing as a quote. this is just a news story and I see no reason for an encyclopedia entry on her --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you must be reading the wrong article because The NY Times that I linked to in my post above was entirely about her. It didn't just mention her in passing. The entire article was dedicated to her and the alleged deception she perpetrated. Second of all, I'm afraid you're wrong, per WP:Notability. Read it and you will see the following text regarding "significant coverage" (i.e. "notability") of a subject:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.

"Significant coverage" is clearly defined and has nothing to do with the amount of coverage or with your personal idea or definition of the word, "siginificant." ask123 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article we are talking about is In a 9/11 Survival Tale, the Pieces Just Don’t Fit September 27, 2007.--Mightyms 16:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the article. Thanks, Mightyms! ask123 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i put an S there when I shouldn't have. the TIME article that Nick mallory posted as a source, does not count as a source, it mentions her in passing, as a quote. And again, I will reitterate that ONE source is NOT enough to establish notability. Please read Wp:bio#Criteria_for_notability_of_people. It clearly states sources (as in plural -- more than one). This lady is not notable. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge and redirect. Not notable. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The person is notable for what they do and have done, not a single event. In my opinion this isn't really a "coat rack" article at all, and I know them when I see them. Burntsauce 17:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If she was notable before the hoax was revealed, then she's notable now. If her notability depends on the hoax story, then she's just a passing news item, and not notable. Many men have beer revealed to fake military careers and medals - those news stories don't make them notable. Being the head of a "survivor's" organization might be notable if she got enough coverage - I'm neurtral on that. MarkBul 17:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand as necessary. This story is making the news the world over. It will definitely go down in the annals of 9/11 as one of the least salubrious episodes. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - was just reported on the main ITN Early Evening News in Britain along with a report from their correspondent in the States. Rapido 18:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. tania head has been in the news for her work as a "survivor" since 9/11 happened so this is definitely not a case of 15 minutes of fame. expand on her previous news/media appearances and have the recent hoax story be a separate item at the bottom. stolenbyme 18:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Articles in the US, UK, Malaysia and Australia, to name a few. The Chronicle of Philathropy has just reported that she's been asked to step down as head of World Trade Center Survivors’ Network. Regardless, she was notable before this, even if it was a complete lie.--Sethacus 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, probably notable before the controversy, certainly notable after it. Darksun 19:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The "around the word" coverage is just re-reporting what the NY Times story details, and so does not count as multiple coverage. Before the expose, she received passing reference, if that, and was not notable. Now she is notable for the expose. See also WP:BLP1E . Edison 21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Notable and verifiable.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is not an article about a person, but about an incident in which a person is involved, and about which there are no provedn facts. There is no article in Wikipedia about World Trade Center Survivors' Network, if it where, a short mention could be made there about this incident. As it stands now this article is WP:COATRACK and and violates NOT#NEWS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A coatrack for what? Whats the secret deceptive message of the article? I coatrack is a deception between the title and the article itself. What is the deception? I am missing it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the coatrack in question is: The article title suggests the article is about Tania Head whereas the article is actually about the Tania Head controversy. To help subside those fears, we need to try to balance the article content between the controversy, and other general biographical information. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think thats just a Wikipedia article, a coatrack is a hidden POV fork, or a way of bringing in unrelated information that is meant for another article. I think you just want a name change, so why the deletion posturing? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Two words: Rosie Ruiz. Became a synonym for a particular sort of cheater and cultural phenomenon. Also, this story is just emerging, and, like Richard Jewel, Ms. Head will find herself with a lasting if unwanted notoriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrekke (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment People who are an embarrassment like this are quickly forgotten - I doubt you'll see her in the news two weeks from now, or ever again. Richard Jewel was accused of a terrible public crime, and Rosie Ruiz scammed one of the major races in the world. The survivor group itself was not well known - I never heard of them until now, and I scan Google News every day. MarkBul 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment And both Rosie Ruiz and Richard Jewell have their own Wikipedia entries. And Ruiz was a complete non-entity before her scam. Head was very prominent within 9/11 suvirvor circles. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "I never saw this thing mentioned on Google News" is hardly a standard candle for assessing notability.--Father Goose 07:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She is the subject of articles all over the world (the world is not all English by the way) and the article is already sourced With NY Times, TIME Magazine, AP, TF1... Wanting to forget her quickly does not make her non-notable. Oh and WP:PAPER also.. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 04:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is WP:NOT#NEWS valid for this event? She has made many claims over the years, this was not all said and done in a day. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 04:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep the only basis for omission is if we carried nothing that happened in the world in the last year or so. The group she heads will certainly now merit an article--people may not have known about it before, but they will now. DGG (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The circumstances and motivation surrounding the creation of the article are irrelevant, if she's notable then she's notable. At any time in the past five or so years if this article had been created it would have been kept; she's a famous survivor of a major disaster and has gone on to become president of a prominent organization based on that disaster. The fact that she's now accused of being a fraud only adds to the notability, it doesn't detract from it. Bryan Derksen 05:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly notable. —Nightstallion 14:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "Keep." 9/11 was notable, and anyone who was either a survivor, or a charlatan posing as a survivor is, by extension, notable. Whether Head's story is verified as true, verified as false, or remains unverified, the fact that she was either a survivor or an opportunist who preyed on others' trust during and after America's worst terrorist tragedy is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.139.6.174 (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Your logic is flawed. 9/11 cannot be denied as notable, not because of the event itself (in my opinion) but because of how it has been (and might be in the future) used by others to limit civil rights and start wars of invasion. Simply being a survivor of 9/11 does not make one notable: all one had to do was be there at that time and then evacuate the building. How Important, as an individual, is that? There are 20,000 of those. They do not all get Wikipedia articles. Nor is the list of all 20,000 names ever going to be listed here at Wikipedia. Hangers-on and imposters to 9/11 trail off into non-notability rapidly. Still, Head has made enough of a mess to qualify as notable, not just because of 9/11 or her fabrications, but because of the deep sense of betrayal some feel about her. Finally, it is a delicate point, but I also note Head's lack of physical beauty and how that might have played a role in her decision to create her fabrications. Was it merely for the celebrity? Clearly, she craved sympathetic attention, just as some genuine 9/11 survivors might. I make this last note with caution: Wikipedia is good at Who, Where, What and When, but Why is the more difficult kind of knowledge to obtain. While it might fill you with revulsion, I hope that Head eventually publishes some kind of fair, honest and self-aware explanation about why she did what she did, even if she is paid for the results. I do not want to second-guess what was going on in her mind, but I would like her to attempt to provide the rest of us with such an explanation someday.--Mightyms 00:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep/merge Definitely noteworthy, it's quite the cunning ruse however I do not feel it's worth of an entire article, maybe put it in the 9/11 article as part of a hoax section or the like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.9.242 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Even if she wasn't notable before (arguable either way) she is now. Nibios 19:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unfortunately... She’s an abomination. But she is notable. Tiptopper 20:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is notable; she has even made into the international media.--Svetovid 01:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think because of the attention she has gained from her lies we should leave the page to show how much of a liar she is. she has gained more attention than many of the other survivors and it is completely ridiculous that anybody should take her story serious. That's why her page should be left, to show she is nothing but a fraud and the history of what happened on 9-11 cant be warped by her huge lie SOhio142 03:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She might have been notable as one of only 19 putative survivors from at or above the point of impact and her prominent involvement with survivors' groups. The prominence of her exposure as a fraud seals it. We will have to make sure the article doesn't become a WP:COATRACK, but the subject itself (her act of fraud) is notable.--Father Goose 06:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of the other 18, how many have articles? If they don't doesn't that call into question her pre-expose notability as part of a non-notable organization? Edison 20:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her story was printed prior to the recent "expose": [2].--Father Goose 02:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Don't be misled by Google searches. some are just passing references and do not really count towards WP:N or WP:BIO while others are just word juxtaposition and have zero to do with this woman, such as "Jason and Tania head to Sauro's place." Try and limit the claim to stories with substantial coverage about her printed before the NY Times exposé . How many are there? Edison 00:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • In that Google search, there are three stories about her, two in German, and those are just ones fetched via Google News. I'd be willing to bet other news sources printed her story prior to the expose as well. All of this lends to her notability.--Father Goose 04:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The two stories in German are not really about her, but she does receive brief mention. They are borderline as to "passing reference" or "substantial coverage." The "Press association" story might have more coverage, but is behind a paywall. These three would not likely suffice as the basis for establishing pre-exposé notability. Claiming that "other stories probably exist" is not a very convincing tactic. Edison 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not a tactic, it's just an attempt to point out some stuff that is falling on deaf ears.--Father Goose 16:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I hear you re the deaf ears. I say again: Rosie Ruiz was a complete non-entity, certainly not notable in the Wikipedia sense before she cheated in the Boston Marathon. You certainly wouldn't have found any Google hits about her if Google had existed back then. Now she is definitely notable. Head falls into exactly the same category, and certainly deserves a page if Ruiz does. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment 9/11 was certainly a notable event, though not everyone involved is individually notable. What makes Head more notable is that she sought publicity (whereas presumably the other 18 did not) and that she has turned out to be a fraud. The parallel to Rosie Ruiz is apt. There was a complete non-entity who sought publicity for an achievement and turned out to be a fraud. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this is still notable as many before have said..Despite how it is/was a hoax. Otherwise there will be gaps in Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterchid (talk • contribs) 06:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if she has been exposed as an impostor, I think she is still notable precisely for that reason. --Vlad|-> 11:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She and the controversy about her are clearly notable. It's expectable to find her on Wikipedia, so I believe it is of public interest to keep (and refine) the article. dariopy —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is very well done - the addition of the Spanish language material adds a lot that I couldn't find in the New York Times. And it's one of those classic New York City hoaxes, like "Omar's School of Begging."Jmkleeberg 16:49, 3 October 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.