730:- agree that this one isn't easy, but feel Edison is right here. Johnson is, like it or not, definitely in the public gaze, and has won enough prizes to be notable. The series of controversies that she has stirred up is also on public record (indisputably existing) and again she is notable for that. For both these reasons she can't fairly be called "marginally notable". Unlike the one-off 'aphasia' of Serene Branson, Johnson's fame is long-lasting and not the result of any one minor slip. And the most probable explanation of the 'attacks' is that Johnson herself tried to remove or emasculate the article, including reliably-cited facts: not a cause for deletion (indeed, blocking might have been appropriate). So we should face the discomfort and keep.
476:
383:"How do I address it?" Like this: We have a great many bio article which have been kept in AFDs, which do not have date and place of birth, education, and family information. These include bios of CEOs of major corporations, which AFDs found to be notable because the individuals have multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of their accomplishments and positions in the business world, and because they have had an important effect in their field of endeavor, as has this person. To a greater extent, we have thousands of bio articles about
198:
link to it, again suggestive of non-notability. The two sources cited are a dead link to the the Humane
Society of the United States' website and an article on the IFJ website that verifies a commedation she was awarded in 1998. The main source of any coverage she has in reliable sources is some severe criticism of a particular article she wrote. There is little else in the way of coverage of her work and nothing (that I have been able to find) by way of biographical details in reliable sources, so an argument could be made that
487:, although the content is not viewable online and some may be false positives. The talk page of the article does not show a serious effort to establish a consensus as to what the article should say in regard to the "jab" article and the response to it from the journalism and science communities. There are certainly BLP issues, so protect the article and work via its talk page toward a balanced section on the article "Jab as deadly as the cancer," the backlash to it from journalists and scientists, and
703:(not subjected to AfD, but certainly has a lot more coverage than this one if considering BLP1E). This is all somewhat subjective, and I don't disagree with Edison's !vote lightly. When you have someone marginally notable like this, and the article has been subject to attacks, and the subject wants deletion, I usually favor deletion. (Cf.
355:
constructed out of them is the fairly dreadful revision that you point to, which tells us nothing biographical? This seems to be a textbook case of things that shouldn't be presented in
Knowledge in a biographical article, because they are actually about (to pick one) the scientific statements made about
387:
of some professional sport, with far less significant coverage than this person,. We have at least hundreds and likely thousands of articles about "porn stars" whose articles only relate what "porn awards" their onscreen copulations and sodomies garnered, and what films they were in. while hardly any
354:
How do you address the fact that those articles contain pretty much zero biographical information about this person (since, after all, they discuss the factual errors themselves, only mentioning this person as the author of the stated-to-be-erroneous articles) and that the only biography that can be
312:
You stated that the article is a shadow of its former self, with many references removed. Rather than judge just the merits of the present form of the article, and to save every other editor form having to page through every previous revision, could you please point to the previous version which you
225:
There are some disturbing elements to this AfD, not least that the current article is a shadow of its former self, with many reliable citations deleted, most probably by people opposed to her views which in 2009 in particular were certainly controversial. However the complaints then are not the only
528:
She is an influential journalist, and the health editor of a major newspaper, and her work has had multiple instances of significant secondary coverage by reliable sources, particularly with controversial claims that some types of vaccinations are harmful, and in reportage on animal research, with
411:
In other words: You address it by pretending that it's OK that there's zero biographical material in the sources to be had, and that articles whose subjects are not this person's life and works can somehow magically support a biography of this person's life and works even though they don't document
197:
The subject is marginally notable at best and the article has been the source of problematic additions which have caused the subject to complain to OTRS and to myself directly. The article has been orphaned since its creation because nobody has been able to find an appropriate article from which to
396:
where it says that the subject's birthplace and birthdate, schooling, residence and family, etc must be freely available in online sources. The sources for this article are by no means just articles under her byline as you imply, but deal with perceived failures in her reporting. To balance that,
572:
The work certainly has been covered in good secondary sources, repeatedly, on multiple issues. It is true that LJ has been extremely private with her personal life, which is fine, but that does not exempt her writing life from public discussion and encyclopedic public record. Her writing life is
52:. Clear evidence iwas presented that her work is notable. The consensus considers that this meets the requirement; the evidence for GNG does not have to be biographical material about her professional life, just material about her work. Journalists become notable by the journalisml.
573:
notable for its repeated and strong ventures into controversies that she has created: people have reacted to her expression, not only and individually to the topics she has written about. The pen is not independent of the hand, and for example Ben
Goldacre's
294:
There appears to have been a long-running edit war about all this. However that doesn't seem reason not to report the facts about the several controversies (MMR, Cancer drugs, NICE - not just a single BLP1E) using the reliable published sources listed here.
749:. This is arguably a borderline case, and if the subject had requested deletion, I'd support that. But it seems her main concern is that the problems with the page should end, so with that in mind I've expanded it and added more references (
470:
at the 15th Annual
Genesis Awards, "an international distinction that recognizes members of the major news and entertainment media for spotlighting animal issues with courage, creativity and integrity." A career in journalism, including
505:
How do you address the fact that "A was criticized by B, C, and D." is not a biography, but a coatrack for the actual subject, which in the cases of the sources so far pointed to appears to be various health/science topics such as
689:: This is not an easy AfD. If not for the fact that article is being used on and off to emphasize criticism of the subject, I wouldn't worry too much that someone decided to write an article about the "health editor" of the
166:
479:, is by no stretch of the imagination "one event." A smoldering edit war, with criticism of her article "Jab as deadly as the cancer'" criticizing a cancer vaccine, and harsh condemnation of said article by a
695:
a middling
British Sunday paper. But scads of successful competent professionals receive some awards and recognition for their work. I've read the "most full" version of Lucy's bio as identified by Chiswick
667:
as well. The lack of biographical detail is irrelevent - reliable sources have written about her work, and that is enough for her to be notable by
Knowledge standards.
160:
577:
is crystal clear that LJ's science writing is a serious and notable topic. It would form a perfect starting point for a tutorial on science and society, for instance.
529:
recognition by the Humane
Society of the US and other well known organizations, as well as multiple significant coverage in books and newspaper articles, satisfying
121:
704:
603:
338:
is as informative as any. My point is rather that there are RS out there and they have been in the article, which is why they are listed above. Hope this helps.
240:
Daily
Express scoops international award for Imutran exposé, 2001 (Lucy Johnston and Jonathan Calvert were presented with the award by film star Tim Curry)
483:
being alternately added to and removed from the article, is not a valid reason to delete the bio article. Several books have some coverage of her work,
249:
558:-biographical information about a science/health subject or a public debate, and after seeing that it's not possible maybe you'll comprehend that.
452:
126:
392:, which survived 3 AFDs, if you are unfamiliar with this vast number of bios.) Many such bio articles have survived AFDs. I do not see in
533:. Do you understand that "various health/science topics" plus animal welfare, is not one little area in which people criticize her?
94:
89:
98:
17:
81:
458:
as well as a 2001 'Genesis Award' from the Humane
Society of the United States for her article on pharmaecutical companies,
181:
484:
676:
286:
271:
148:
467:
488:
275:
234:
554:
do not constitute biography. Try pointing to an article that gives biographical information about this person, not
707:
we considered a Los
Angeles area reporter who had won some awards, but got fame because of an apparent episode of
778:
462:. The Humane Society award being a deadlink does not make it not exist,. Does the nominator think it is a hoax?
264:
40:
142:
735:
582:
511:
417:
343:
300:
282:
229:
759:
739:
720:
680:
647:
617:
586:
567:
542:
523:
500:
433:
406:
378:
347:
326:
304:
216:
138:
63:
753:). With more eyes on it after this AfD and with HJ's semi-protection, hopefully the page will stabilize.
774:
643:
211:
36:
412:
them in the slightest but are rather articles disagreeing with other articles about subjects such as
188:
174:
731:
664:
578:
421:
339:
296:
85:
245:
480:
672:
613:
563:
550:— No, it hasn't; neither has the person's life; and that's the point. Rebuttals dealing with
519:
429:
374:
361:
267:. Goldacre also critiqued Johnston's Express piece on mobile phone masts, another controversy.
260:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
773:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
639:
628:
538:
496:
402:
389:
322:
203:
456:
154:
754:
700:
472:
199:
548:
her work has had multiple instances of significant secondary coverage by reliable sources
463:
691:
713:
660:
448:
393:
314:
77:
69:
59:
711:
she had on camera. She hadn't requested deletion, but BLP concerns were present.)--
668:
609:
559:
515:
425:
370:
256:
115:
534:
530:
492:
398:
318:
226:
thing for which she has been in the news. Here are some (apologies for length):
663:, plus the amount of criticism directed at her is significant enough to pass
631:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
384:
459:
507:
413:
356:
252:. This particular controversy thus extended over a period of three years.
239:
54:
451:. BLP1E does not apply when she has won a 1998 commendation from the
708:
397:
there are also awards recognizing her accomplishments in reportage.
767:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
460:"Terrible Despair of Animals Cut Up in the Name of Research"
473:
influential writings about animal research and animal abuse
289:
on 25 April 2010. This was a separate event from the above.
248:(a major and long-lasting controversy); and in 2009 for
750:
697:
491:
and the removal of the story from the Express website.
369:
about this person other than that she was the byline.
335:
283:
NICE requested the Sunday Express to print a correction
235:
Minority Thought (attacks Lucy Johnston) 9 January 2011
111:
107:
103:
270:
Professor Diane Harper complained formally about her:
173:
638:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
313:feel best demonstrates that the person satisfies
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
781:). No further edits should be made to this page.
455:for her article "Barred from Animals Kingdom"
334:OK, there has never been a stable version, but
705:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Serene Branson
287:"SCANDAL OF LIFE-SAVING DRUGS HELD UP BY POLL"
699:, and its really not that special. Cf. even
187:
8:
604:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
602:Note: This debate has been included in the
265:Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, 10 October 2009
601:
274:. The Sunday Express published an apology
259:critiqued her in his Bad Science column:
453:International Federation of Journalists
276:October 2009 apology by Sunday Express
230:headhunted from Big Issue by Observer
7:
659:Sufficient coverage exists to pass
24:
388:even give their real names. (See
385:some jock who played a few games
244:She drew criticism in 2007 for
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
477:health editor of the Express
250:Jab as deadly as the cancer
798:
272:Complaint, 10 October 2009
760:16:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
740:09:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
721:03:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
261:Jabs as bad as the cancer
213:Penny for your thoughts?
64:09:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
770:Please do not modify it.
681:08:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
648:00:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
618:23:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
587:06:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
568:18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
543:04:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
524:22:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
501:14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
434:18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
407:04:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
379:22:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
348:15:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
327:13:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
305:09:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
217:08:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
512:MMR vaccine controversy
466:that her story in fact
418:MMR vaccine controversy
285:relating to an article
481:"bad science" column
420:. You need to read
365:, and don't tell us
246:"Dangers of MMR Jab"
489:an apology of sorts
485:per a Google Search
475:, capped by being
281:On 26 April 2010,
48:The result was
758:
719:
650:
620:
607:
362:The Daily Express
789:
772:
757:
718:
637:
633:
608:
468:a winner in 2001
422:Project:Coatrack
390:Long Dong Silver
214:
208:
192:
191:
177:
129:
119:
101:
34:
797:
796:
792:
791:
790:
788:
787:
786:
785:
779:deletion review
768:
701:Marilyn Hagerty
626:
464:Indications are
212:
204:
134:
125:
92:
76:
73:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
795:
793:
784:
783:
763:
762:
743:
742:
724:
723:
692:Sunday Express
683:
653:
652:
651:
635:
634:
623:
622:
621:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
552:other subjects
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
352:
351:
350:
292:
291:
290:
279:
268:
253:
242:
237:
232:
195:
194:
131:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
794:
782:
780:
776:
771:
765:
764:
761:
756:
752:
748:
745:
744:
741:
737:
733:
732:Chiswick Chap
729:
726:
725:
722:
716:
715:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
693:
688:
684:
682:
679:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
654:
649:
645:
641:
636:
632:
630:
625:
624:
619:
615:
611:
605:
600:
599:
588:
584:
580:
579:Chiswick Chap
576:
571:
570:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
546:
545:
544:
540:
536:
532:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
504:
503:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
469:
465:
461:
457:
454:
450:
446:
443:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
410:
409:
408:
404:
400:
395:
391:
386:
382:
381:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
358:
353:
349:
345:
341:
340:Chiswick Chap
337:
336:19 March 2012
333:
330:
329:
328:
324:
320:
316:
311:
308:
307:
306:
302:
298:
297:Chiswick Chap
293:
288:
284:
280:
277:
273:
269:
266:
262:
258:
255:No less than
254:
251:
247:
243:
241:
238:
236:
233:
231:
228:
227:
224:
221:
220:
219:
218:
215:
209:
207:
201:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:Lucy Johnston
75:
74:
71:
70:Lucy Johnston
68:
66:
65:
61:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
769:
766:
746:
727:
712:
690:
686:
671:
656:
627:
574:
555:
551:
547:
444:
366:
360:
331:
309:
257:Ben Goldacre
222:
205:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
665:WP:CREATIVE
640:Ron Ritzman
575:Bad Science
206:HJÂ Mitchell
161:free images
755:SlimVirgin
447:Satisfies
202:applies.
775:talk page
610:• Gene93k
37:talk page
777:or in a
714:Milowent
629:Relisted
510:and the
508:Cervarix
416:and the
414:Cervarix
367:anything
357:Cervarix
122:View log
39:or in a
709:aphasia
669:Yunshui
560:Uncle G
516:Uncle G
426:Uncle G
371:Uncle G
310:Comment
223:Comment
167:WPÂ refs
155:scholar
95:protect
90:history
687:Delete
661:WP:GNG
535:Edison
493:Edison
449:WP:BIO
399:Edison
394:WP:BIO
319:Edison
315:WP:BIO
139:Google
99:delete
332:Info:
200:BLP1E
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
60:talk
16:<
751:diff
747:Keep
736:talk
728:Keep
696:Chap
657:Keep
644:talk
614:talk
583:talk
564:talk
539:talk
531:WP:N
520:talk
497:talk
445:Keep
430:talk
403:talk
375:talk
344:talk
323:talk
301:talk
175:FENS
149:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
50:keep
556:non
424:.
359:by
189:TWL
124:•
120:– (
55:DGG
738:)
717:•
646:)
616:)
606:.
585:)
566:)
541:)
522:)
514:?
499:)
432:)
405:)
377:)
346:)
325:)
317:?
303:)
263:,
210:|
169:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
62:)
734:(
685:'
677:ć°´
675:‍
673:雲
642:(
612:(
581:(
562:(
537:(
518:(
495:(
428:(
401:(
373:(
342:(
321:(
299:(
278:.
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
118:)
80:(
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.