Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Miscavige Hill

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. "Keep" in the sense of "not delete". There is no consensus about whether this should remain a standalone article or merged elsewhere, but that can be determined via the process described at Help:Merging.  Sandstein  10:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Miscavige Hill

edit
Jenna Miscavige Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not-notable Scientologist. Other than being the niece of current church leader, she seems to have a typical bio of someone whose left the religion and spoken against it. Might be worth mentioning in an article about Scientology as an example (although there are dozens of other possibilities) but not notable in her own right. Sources generally record what's she's said not who she is.

We don't need to document every ex-scientologist or critic of Scientology to make some ideological point. Scott Mac 17:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree with you that we don't need to document all of those who are escaping, Marty Rahtbun's blog discusses several a week, but Jenna is one of the more serious fracture points of the last ten years. The formation of ex Scientology kids and the interview on ABC were newsworthy events. The story of her failing to get law enforcement to do a "welfare check" on her long missing aunt may be bigger.
  • Number of hits on Google has to be taken with a grain of salt, but there are 47,000 of them for "Jenna Miscavige Hill" -wikipedia. That's three times as many as Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder get who definitely belong on Wikipedia. (She gets about 1/3 as many hits in Google news). You can still be a significant player even if you are young and female. Keith Henson (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge with David Miscavige Article has 11 references from 7 different WP:RS with only one primary source represented. This fulfilled the requirement that the subject have multiple reliable sources intellectually independent from each other and the subject. Now I know that these references need to be incorporated into the body of the article, but that should be easily accomplished. Also being related to a Scientologist is not in itself notable, but she is related to the leader of Scientology and has become a very vocal opponent and created an organization to fight against her very notable uncle. Because of this I am unclear what policy Scott Mac believes she does not fulfill.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these sources are about Scientology using her as an example. They are not really biographical. An article does not need to violate a policy for us to judge the subject not to be notable.--Scott Mac 19:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok, that is a better explanation on the why. So I am going to change my vote to merge because in my keep argument I do mention that her relation is one of the reasons she is notable. Since as you say the sources only mention her biographically in relation to Davie she should probably be merged with that article.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I am a anti-scientology campaigner. Scott Mac's claim that sources are not biographical is not factual. The ABC Nightline episode from April 2008 documents her life from early childhood into her current life. I am not a wikipedian, so I don't know the offial notability guidelines, but a half hour portrait by one of the major networks should qualify, doens't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.221.167 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC) — 85.147.221.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how she is a controversy.--Scott Mac 19:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, being an Apostate is not really notable neither is running a counter movement website. Is not really a "controversy" we have to remember WP:NOTSCANDAL. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points, perhaps the best place would be Criticism of Scientology, if we had such an article (such as Criticism of Judaism and Criticism of the Catholic Church. That topic is directed to Scientology controversies, which is why I recommended that. Merging with the article on her father would be a good compromise. SeaphotoTalk 23:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I'm a former CofS member and early ARS member. On Jenna, her father has no Wikipedia entry as he's not notable. I don't think she should be merged with her uncle (David Miscavige). I think that ESK really is a notable web site, but Jenna isn't, imho, notable on her own at the moment. She was active in speaking out in early 2008, but seems to have largely gone about her life since then. That said, I think there really is genuine controversy here because of the mis-treatment of children that some of the ex-Sea Org kids have brought to light. So I think that the content on this page should go somewhere, and the Scientology Controversies page is probably as good a place as any. Deirdresm (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)— Deirdresm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I am a anti-scientology campaigner. The fact that she happens to be a niece of the current leader, is indeed not noteworthy for WP. But ABC nightline made a half hour portrait of her. Reason they picked her, and not any other ex-Scientologyists, is because of her family relations. But I fail to see how that should be a reason for delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.221.167 (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC) — 85.147.221.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the notability is connected, I'd normally remove mentions of a niece as irrelevant to anyone's bio. If this is merged, there's a large chance it will soon be edited out.--Scott Mac 10:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a connected notability regarding the shared connection and history in regards to scientology, but it seems like a sentence or two mention would be sufficient. I agree that all of the content probably shouldn't be in an article about him. Unfortunately, I just don't see enough content for a separate article about her. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Important to whom? Being a relative of an "elusive" person, and being courageous, are not reasons for Wikipedia to do anything.--Scott Mac 19:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment above may seem overly simplistic, but I think it's a valid point. In addition, I'm surprised Cirt hasn't turned up yet! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that there isn't an Ex Scn Kids article. If this one does get deleted, we could do one on ESK (we should anyway), move the material about the three founders there and redirect their names to that article.

BTW Scott, I don't see how your claim of "not involved" re the cult holds up given what you have been doing. "Apostate" is a smear used by paid academics to attack critics which you used in reference to Jesse Prince. Is that a violation of BLP in itself? And you created a scn related category. Keith Henson (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources I cited have at least 2 paragraphs on the website with 3 having more than that/the website as the main subject. Unfortunately I got the sources from a private database (Lexis Nexis) so I can't link to the articles but I can include quotes if you would like. I don't do it as default because of feedback I've received from other editors. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable since she "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Only notable with respect to Scientology rationales for deletion are specious, since any notable person could be considered to derive their notability from something. Chester Markel (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My, my. The Jesse Prince link turned red. The page was up for deletion 4 days right after Christmas (Dec 26 to Jan 1 and deleted. I note that none of the people who are interested in the topic had a chance to comment. Isn't that jumping the gun? Can this be challenged? Keith Henson (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the ABC nightline interview in proper context, presumably Scientology controversies. Disclosure: I am an anti-Scientology campaigner. I feel strongly in particular about the ABC nightline portrait being preserved on wikipedia as it documents life and treatment of teens in the sea org. The best context may be Scientology controversies, as there are other primary sources documenting similar experiences. I noticed that such a section is currently not included in this page. I don't think a merge with her uncles page provides a good context. 85.147.221.167 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jenna_Miscavige_Hill&oldid=1137947110"