Talk:Faye Turney

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Notability tag

I have removed the tag as the article now references secondary sources per Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Elliskev 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War

I haved removed the Iraq War from the battles/wars section of the infobox, I can't find any information in this article, the HMS Cornwall article or the 2007 captuare of 15 soldiers article that states that Faye or HMS Cornwall was involved in the Iraq War or resulting occupation, she was in seirra leone and then patrolling the gulf for gun smugglers according to what I can see.

Apologies if this is incorrect but the article doesn't even mention the conflict, so if she did take part in it please can it be mentioned in the article too? SGGH 14:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose technically she was posted to iraq but in reality that meant patrolling the persian gulf. They were looking for all sorts of contraband, smuggled guns etc. but I think they were actually more interested in smuggled vehicles.WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 06:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection

Article has been redirected as an outcome of the AfD. History is preserved to allow merging of relevant info to the target, or to allow recreation in case circumstances change in the future, as per my close. The DRV was closed as essentially irrelevant. If anyone wishes to revert my redirect in an editorial capacity, please develop a new consensus per WP:CCC - Y (Y NOT?) 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the overturning of the close at DRV is a pretty strong indication that consensus may have changed. I'm strongly against a redirect, for the record - people who search for Faye Turney are looking for information on her, not all 15. In fact, re-reading the AfD, there doesn't even seem to be a consensus for a redirect. Consensus doesn't have to change from a redirect if no consensus existed to begin with. I'm undoing the re-redirecting for now pending evidence that there's actually consensus for a redirect here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great..... hello Jeff. Overturning the decision at AfD is an issue for DRV. Now that that's failed, ... it's failed. I found a consensus - I am sorry you disagree, but reasonable people can disagree, can't they? - Y (Y NOT?) 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, and I made an error - the DRV didn't overturn anything, and I apologise for saying as such. Now, back to the consensus at hand - where is it? It seems like a lot of people in the AfD felt that keeping was the right move here, and relatively few felt redirecting was an option. The close at DRV was not that anything should be overturned or endorsed, but rather that the redirecting was an editorial decision that DRV couldn't deal with. If you look at the discussion at DRV, however, a not-insignificant amount of people felt that the redirect was improper as well. Combining the two discussions about this article, I'm not really seeing any consensus whatsoever, but I'm fine with being wrong about that, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must strip out the disaffected keepers who came to DRV to re-argue the merits. Whatever. Between the deletes, the merges, and the redirects, and the intervening events, I think there's plenty of consensus to not keep a standalone article. A redirect addresses that nicely. Please revert yourself. We can cover her within the big article. - Y (Y NOT?) 19:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you strip out the "disaffected keepers," I'm not sure I'm seeing a consensus for a redirect. Could you please point it out for me? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Jeff, I don't have to. This is how I closed it. In good faith. If you don't like it... you don't like it - you don't revert it. - Y (Y NOT?) 20:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough!

Can we please stop bickering about the interpretation of past decisions? The question on the table right now is whether this page should be kept as a redirect or if there is enough independent material to support a stand-alone article. This is the proper place to make that decision. The prior discussions can inform us but that's it. Let's figure out the right answer now.

I've tried to lay out the arguments and evidence for and against based on the prior discussions. Please amend and expand the lists. Please do not delete an argument just because you disagree with it. Rossami (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to keep as redirect

The subject has no notability independent of this one incident.
The news coverage of the subject listed at the bottom of the old version of the article represents her "15 minutes of fame", not lasting evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not WikiNews.
She has no more involvement in this event than any of the other 14 detainees, none of whom have dedicated articles. To single this person out is to pander to the, arguable sexist, personality driven prioritites of the press.
If the subject had died in this incident, a separate article would have been rejected because Wikipedia is not a memorial. We should not reach an inconsistent result merely because she lived through the one incident.
The parent article already covers all the aspects which have been presented as arguments for her notable. A separate article would be pointless duplication.

Arguments to create as stand-alone article

There are multiple reliable sources that address her (and not just the capture incident). Some can be found here. This makes Turney notable within Wikipedia's meaning of notability.
At the prior AfD linked above, there was no consensus for a redirect and apparent consensus for keeping, regardless of the way the discussion was closed. Ordinarily, when an AfD does not reach a consensus, the article in question stays; this means that the burden of argument lies with those who wish to delete or redirect. In this case the principle has been turned on its head.
Although Turney's notability is connected with the 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel, as she was the only female/mother involved, there has been wider debate about the role of women in the military which centered on her and not the incident see here for an example.
In terms of content organization, the 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel is presently 70 kilobytes long, suggesting that it might be appropriate to split it into smaller, more specific articles. (See Wikipedia:Article size) Having all the background information on Turney (year of birth, town of origin, footballing father, wedding details, place of familiy home, previous service history, etc) in the main article adds nothing directly to the readers' understanding of the Incident. It does, however, add to the readers' understanding of Turney.

Discussion

In terms of the arguments to reinstate the redirect, the only one that is really valid is the one addressing WP:NOTNEWS - the subject meets WP:BIO, notability is not temporary, the lack of the other articles doesn't constitute the lack of this one (a) it's a reverse WP:Pokémon test, b) she's unique anyway as the only female), being a memorial wouldn't matter given the previous comments, and the parent article can have that information merged here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four days with little discussion. Is there enough reason to break this out? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been adding to the Arguments to create as stand-alone article - perhaps I should have signed - it didn't seem that others were. Greenshed 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is enough reason to break this out now. However, these are my reasons:

Sexist?

Readers may or may not hold the point of view that the Press's focus on Turney was sexist. However, the notability guidelines do not say that where some editors suspect the motives of credible news media organizations then we disregard them. We're not trying to change the world; we're just writing a verifiable, neutral encyclopedia about an uncertain and biased world.

No memorials

To quote Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, the Wikipedia is not the place to honour departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. To argue that had Turney died we would not have written an article on her is a non sequiter. No one would have argued that we should have had an article on Turney because she was a dearly departed friend or relative. We're arguing that, dead or alive, she is notable.

Notability

The relevant guideline here is Wikipedia:Notability (people). Turney undeniably has multiple features in credible news media making her notable. Arguably, at present, she has wide name recognition in the UK and perhaps elsewhere. Anyway, a biography only needs to pass one of the notability criteria for it to pass WP:BIO.

Independent notability

It is probably fair to say that virtually all who are debating here accept that, at present, Turney's notability is either largely or wholly associated with the 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. As far as I am aware, there is no Wikipedia guideline or policy on biographies which are closely associated with a larger event or subject. That being the case, this becomes a question of content organization (ie should we have two articles or one), although it is significant that the guidelines at WP:BIO give use the answer that it's ok to have an article on Turney. More conclusively, there are multiple articles which address Turney directly (not the incident), making her independently notable.

Content organization

In decending order of importance these are my reasons for having a separate article on Turney:

We have enough verifiable information to write an article on her which is not a stub.
Were all the background information on Turney (year of birth, town of origin, footballing father, wedding details, place of familiy home, previous service history, etc) to be placed in the main article, this would add nothing directly to the readers' understanding of the incident. It would, however, add to the readers' understanding of Turney if placed in the article about her.
There is information about Turney in the main article which should be expanded in the Faye Turney article. (eg. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks about sending the mother of a child to the battlefield.)
The 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel article is presently 70 kilobytes long, suggesting that it might be appropriate to split it into smaller, more specific articles. Adding more information on Turney to the main article will make it longer still. Greenshed 21:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold

No new arguments have been presented to keep this separate, so I'm being bold and reverting the redirect. Given the arguments and the lack of consensus at the AfD, it seems proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that, it's protected. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}.

I have added Faye Turney to the requests for unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Greenshed 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - unprotected per WP:RPP request. Let me know if there are any issues - Alison^☺ 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

There has not really been a decision to unredirect it, so I'm redirectng it. Rodrigue 21:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion above it might be better to form a consensus here first. --John 22:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus must be formed here first before reverting to a redirect. Greenshed 22:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus nessesary, I am basing my decision on WP:BLP#Articles about living people notable only for one event.Rodrigue 17:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:BLP#Articles about living people notable only for one event gave a cast iron basis for the redirection then no discussion or consensus would be required; however, it does not. Quoting from the above section on BLP:

"Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them"

- Turney does not have a low profile.

"If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted."

- Reliable sources (used in the article) do address Turney directly and she has been discussed in the contexts of not only the Iranian incident, but also of the role of women and mothers in the armed forces and her decision to sell her story to the Sun newspaper.

The BLP policy also points out the following possible problems:

Giving "undue weight to the events in the context of the individual"

-In this case the media gave a massive amount of coverage to Turney and so we are not giving her undue weight in the overall context.

Creates "redundancy and additional maintenance overhead"

- As has been pointed out above, the Turney article is not a redundant subset of the main event article. There is plently of information in this article which does not belong in the main article.

Cause "problems for our neutral point of view policy"

- The Turney article is very well-sourced and I don't see any NPOV problems in this case.

Finally, the policy states "Evaluate on a case by case basis; and be willing to discuss any removals on the talk page". This clearly means that any editors cannot cite the preceding policy as a reason to redirect without discussion on the talk page. Greenshed 19:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, I don't see what the issue is here. The issue is dealt with, she's back on board and not been mentioned in the media since this fiasco happened. Give it a month and the article will be deletable anyway.ALR 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have another AfD? People will be like, who?? lol -- Y not? 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]