Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Pack

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. There's consensus that she's not independently notable. There's no consensus whether to merge or redirect. I suggest that interested editors now seek consensus whether to cover her in which other article, and then create a redirect. If needed, this article can be draftified for merging via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 08:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Pack

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BLP1E: not notable as a pastor or academic. StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🦉 hoot hoot🦉, I think this is a fair assessment. However, I suspect the meniton of Karen would be subject to consistent editing out and perhaps edit wars on Morling's page, becuase it is a conservative, Christian college. DrMushEa (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DrMushEa: the conservative and LGBT clash is the focal point of what caused this to be covered to begin with. The vast majority of colleges in Australia do not fire employees when they get married (to a partner of the same sex or otherwise). This is a particular aspect of this particular college.--Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Convinced by User:Beccaynr that Sex Discrimination Act 1984 is a better target, as it is lacking actual cases. I do think it should be mentioned very briefly at Morling College (which could use expansion overall).--Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, selectively and per WP:NPOV, with Sex Discrimination Act 1984. An article about Pack otherwise currently appears to fit WP:BLP1E, because 1) reliable sources appear to cover Pack only in the context of a single event, 2) she appears to otherwise remain, and likely to remain, a low-profile individual, and 3) the event is not significant or her role was either not substantial or not well documented. The available reporting on the circumstances surrounding the loss of her job is limited, but the current law and its impact appears to be significant and well-documented. Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Morling CollegeDelete. The Pack article by itself violates WP:BLP1E so keeping is not an option. Merging the controversy section in the Pack article to the Morling College article, other than perhaps a sentence or two about the subject, would breach WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK because the College article is not very long in its current form (and contrary to what Eostrix says above, the College is not only known for this issue - it has a much longer history than this particular incident). My inclination is to delete the article entirely (because it's not special in any way, it's a straightforward application of the religious exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act), but I accept it might be a reasonable search term and a sentence in the College article wouldn't violate any Wikipedia policies, so I'm prepared to allow that. Beccaynr's suggestion of a merge to the Sex Discrimination Act may have some merit, but it's just a common example of how the law may work in practice - there's nothing special about it. Following Beccanyr's adding of sourced content to the Sex Discrimination Act article, I am no longer convinced that a redirect is appropriate or that preserving this page is appropriate. Deletion is the best option. Deus et lex (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deus et lex: no where above did I say the college is only known for this. I suggested a selective merge for a short section at the college (at current size, a short paragraph worth I'd say).--Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Comment I agree about the WP:UNDUE concerns if there was a merge to Morling College, but I don't think a redirect works well, because Pack is no longer associated with the institution. One of the reasons I think a merge to the law works well is because that article currently has no content related to this application, and this article seems to WP:COATRACK that issue, e.g. Are greater protections needed for LGBTQ+ staff and students in faith-based schools? (The Educator Australia, April 9, 2021), LGBTQ+ teachers and students in faith-based educational institutions need urgent protection (Equality Australia, April 8, press release), and the legal issue is prominent in the reporting around the ABC 7:30 interview by Pack (ABC, April 8, 2021), (Star Observer, April 9, 2021), (QNews, April 14, 2021), (Pink News, April 14, 2021). There is also a podcast (Saturday Magazine, April 14, 2021) that may not discuss the law, but I haven't listened to it yet. I also think that while merging (which I am interested in attempting), research could be conducted to help develop a section about this particular application of the law. Beccaynr (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Oppose merge/redirect to both Morling College and the Sex Discrimination Act. The topic would be WP:Undue weight in either article in my opinion; particularly the latter as its just one case that hasn't necessarily achieved importance in relation to that act (i.e. are there scholarly papers actually demonstrating that, or are we allowing the media cycle to unduly place significance on this case in relation to that law). It doesn't look like this case had any important legal precedent, but was sadly a routine application of the law. WP:NOTSCANDAL/WP:NOTNEWS applies here. 4meter4 (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I think it is the legal issue that should be merged, e.g. Married Sunday, fired Monday: Churches threaten to dismiss staff who wed same-sex partners (SMH, 2017), In Some Australian Schools, Teachers Can Be Fired for Being Gay (NYT, 2018), Liberal marriage equality law architect calls to end discrimination against teachers (Guardian, 2018), Christian teacher says school forced her to quit for supporting marriage equality (Guardian, 2019) and the recent sources from this article do not appear to describe an application that is isolated or insignificant, and therefore can be placed in encyclopedic context in an appropriate merge target, per WP:NOTNEWS. There is some discussion of the issue that is segregated into LGBT rights in Australia and LGBT rights in South Australia, which had not been clear in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 article. Per WP:PRESERVE, I think the work done on the Pack article can be effectively merged to related articles with a focus on the legal issue. Beccaynr (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how a single cherry picked case like this isn't WP:Undue weight in those articles, and I further note that having a redirect isn't possible to more than one article. Additionally, I think there are better and more appropriate ways (not to mention better sources) to address the wider topic of LGBTQ rights in Australia in relation to the Sex Discrimination Act. As you say, this is not an isolated case which means the content in those other articles should take a broader approach in our coverage rather than honing in on one of the many similar individual cases. I am sure there are many peer reviewed journal articles in LGBTQ studies, gender studies, legal studies etc. as well as other reference works with statistics and other relevant data that provide a broader perspective and analysis which would be a more appropriate way to tackle those issues within wikipedia's relevant articles. Given the issues of maintaining the privacy of living individuals known only for one event and the clear WP:COATRACK issues involved, I personally feel those issues trump any argument to WP:PRESERVE. 4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To clarify where to redirect or merge to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, this was not actually a merge, as Beccaynr did not copy text or attribute a merge in her edits. She merely utilized the same references and applied them in a different context with different text (in a thoughtful, appropriate, and well executed fashion). Utilizing the same sources in a new way is not a merge, and therefore there is no reason to WP:PRESERVE article history with a redirect in this case. Deletion is therefore still possible. @Beccaynr, while a merge is a possible outcome of this AFD, please do not merge material without community consensus first during an open AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the reminder about the attribution, and I have added it to the Talk page of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 article. With the way this discussion progressed, it had seemed helpful to show my suggestion for the content. As to what to do now, it appears Pack voluntarily placed herself in the public spotlight and highlighted the legal issue, which created a flurry of reporting that can add to the encyclopedia, even if it is not enough to sustain a standalone article for her at this time. Upon further review of the LGBT rights in Australia article, and specifically the religious exemptions section, it looks like a redirect and merge can fit there, based on the existing content, which includes news reporting about another teacher. Beccaynr (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beccanyr, no attribution was needed as you did not merge any material requiring attribution. You wrote original material and a merge did not occur. Merely utilizing the same sources but in a new way with new text does not require attribution to the Karen Pack article. Attribution would be required if you were actually copying text or using closely paraphrased text from this article. You didn't do that so no attribution is necessary. Further a redirect is inappropriate as Pack is not mentioned anywhere in the article's text. 4meter4 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was trying to update my !vote to a redirect and merge to LGBT rights in Australia, where it appears Pack could be mentioned, because another teacher already is mentioned in the religious exemptions section. And as we're discussing elsewhere, I thought you were reminding me about adding an attribution, and I think that WP:COPYWITHIN supports it. I also think per WP:PATT, I can clarify the attribution without causing any harm to this AfD process. Beccaynr (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... It's a potential option, although I would limit the content to a single sentence if we were to redirect to LGBT rights in Australia#Religious exemptions. However, I question if adding this content is actually improving that article? Do we really need another example, and if so why this one? I'm sure there are many other LGBTQ teachers in Australia who have been fired for their sexual orientation or gender expression from religious schools that have made the news cycle since the law was passed in 1984. What makes this case exceptional? In what way are we actually improving that article? It seems to me that this is a rather un-necessary addition to that article; although feasible. To put it another way, the wikipedia article on murder doesn't actually list specific examples of murders because of undue weight being given to an individual murder in relation to the topic. I wonder if we would be creating undue weight issues by having examples in the Religious exemptions portion of that article by listing individual cases unless they were highlighted as important cases in scholarly writing outside of the news cycle. I don't think we have enough distance to make that case yet with Karen Pack as it is a very recent case. 4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think similar to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the style and layout of LGBT rights in Australia#Religious exemptions offers an opportunity for recent sources, e.g. ABC News, The Educator Australia, Equality Australia, to improve the section with updated information. A major news organization, educator magazine, advocacy organization, as well as a variety of other news outlets, took notice of Pack and her situation, while emphasizing the legal issue, but she is still highlighted as the reason the recent attention happened. Civil rights often advance based on individual test cases, and her situation appears to be that even if she could prove her claim, she would not win under the current law. That there doesn't appear to be much more is why this article appears to be WP:BLP1E, but Pack and the WP:SECONDARY context about the current state of the law have been found to be newsworthy, and the sources about her situation and the current state of the law therefore appear helpful for improving other parts of the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get what you are saying, but this is why we have policies like WP:NOTNEWS. The sources in question all date from August 2021, I question whether a flurry of news coverage and activism just a couple months ago has given us enough distance to really evaluate whether this content is encyclopedic, and how it fits into a bigger topic. I would think we would need some sustained coverage in sources that extend beyond the current ongoing event over time to get proper perspective. I personally think it's too soon to be writing on Karen Pack.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think WP:NOTNEWS supports the merge of the April, 2021 sources, because it includes, events must be put into encyclopedic context, which is what a redirect and merge could accomplish, by placing the material in an article where it has relevant context. The WP:TOOSOON essay also seems to offer support for this, because it discusses adding encyclopedic content to related articles if there is an insufficient basis for a standalone article. Per WP:NOTEWORTHY, The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. Similarly, in WP:ATD-M, it states, Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists. For example, information about family members of a celebrity who are not otherwise notable is generally included in, or merged into, the article on that celebrity. Beccaynr (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beccanyr, I am starting to get frustrated, because you seem to be ignoring the spirit of our core policies at WP:NOT (which is more foundational than AFD policy). TOOSOON is an AFD concept. I'm not arguing that because this is a merge discussion. If I am referring to policy I will link it. My argument is entirely based in WP:NOTNEWS and more broadly Wikipedia:Recentism. I am talking about the sources being too chronologically close to the events in question to get encyclopedic perspective. The topic is currently lacking secondary sources with chronological distance (largely because the events are too new to write about). We need different kinds of sources with chronological distance from the event. Otherwise we are editorializing news sources in a way that approaches WP:SYNTH and contradicts the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia should have a lag in coverage, because without it encyclopedic perspective is impossible. Examples used in LGBT rights in Australia should be taken from sources with a broader chronological scope of the topic, and with time in-between the example(s) and the publication of those sources. Those sources should be written by historians or scholars with the authority to speak on that topic with a scholarly perspective. In other words, examples should prove they are notable/ encyclopedic by being cited as a notable example years after the relevant event(s) took place. We need distance to get encyclopedic perspective, and that is the spirit of NOTNEWS. Ignoring that is WP:Wikilawyering.4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - following changes done above I'm now in favour of deleting without any redirect (I've changed my !vote above). Thanks to Beccanyr for using some of the sources in a different article. I'm not convinced any redirect or merge is appropriate now. Deus et lex (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the WP:RECENTISM explanatory supplement helps emphasize how there can be good faith debate about the positives and negatives, as it relates to building the encyclopedia. The negatives section seems to relate more to the problem with recentism and standalone articles, while the positives section seems to offer some support for a merge and redirect, including but not limited to the part that states, by documenting timely material with reliable sources at the outset, more permanent sources will hopefully be found and used later. In my comment above, I was trying to be concise in an effort to avoid bludgeoning the process, while also identifying what I see as a broad theme throughout related policies and guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2021 (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/Karen_Pack&oldid=1050512434"