Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Chanty Binx - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 17:12, 13 May 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 17:12, 13 May 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. The WP:BLP1E arguments are the most persuasive and a significant portion of the article could be considered unnecessary and harmful for a general purpose encyclopaedia. Ritchie333 08:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Chanty Binx

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

BLP sourced only to a negative Huffington Post opinion column. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 23:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 23:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 23:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites \\ 19:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The HuffPost link is a textbook example of a opinion blog, not a news story, and all statements sourced to it must be attributed to the writer. It cannot be used as a source for facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) These are WP:SURMOUNTABLE concerns. The most important thing is that notability is established, not whether the text in the sources can be mentioned in the article. Do you want me to 5x expand this article and nominate this for DYK? sst✈ 05:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
      • If that results in a well-sourced biographical article, absolutely, and you'll deserve a barnstar or two to boot. If there are sources you've found which can give us an actual biography rather than a throwaway line, kudos. I have not seen any sources that would allow us to write her biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have now expanded the article to more than 2000 characters of prose, and the requirement for DYK is 1500. An article by The Daily Dot + an article by Jezebel + a piece by a HuffPost writer is enough significant coverage for this to meet WP:GNG. Also, the incident at the University of Toronto plus the harassment and threats she has received means that this is a WP:BLP2E. sst✈ 12:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - First and foremost, as explicitly stated at WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". Those sources can still support the subject's notability (which I'll get to), but we need more than notability to have an article -- we need verifiability, reliable sources, and content that can pass our BLP policies. As the three sources we have so far are blogs, we have no reliable sources for this BLP. That's a dealbreaker up front. Moving on nonetheless... We have three sources. One is a HuffPo opinion piece that, while it can help to establish notability, is only actually reliable for the opinions of its author, not the facts it contains (especially when talking about a BLP -- and especially a BLP in this context). It's also the only source cited that even mentions the name "Chanty Binx". We can tell the other articles are about her because what they're really about is this one video and the way people in the Internet responded to her. For example, the Daily Dot piece, which relies on exclusively on lousy sources for this story, is all about how people make fun of her on the Internet. So we can say that she was harassed, but how could we use that to build a good encyclopedia article without it turning into a list of bad things people have said about her? Jezebel tells the same story, and includes things like quoted YouTube comments. We have a video, what transpired in the video, nasty things the Internet said, the fact that some recognizable blogs picked up on those nasty things and on the video, and the opinions of the bloggers themselves. Nowhere is there sufficient content to build a biography, even if we could rely on blogs for material. You could talk about how many WP:GHITS there are, but there's a reason that's not a valid argument at AfD -- ghits don't always mean reliable sources (especially, I would argue, in the case of Internet memes). The vast majority of those hits are in the chan universe, the MRA universe, or social media. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Feminists and feminism clearly fall within the category of "gender-related disputes broadly construed" from which the nominator is banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#NorthBySouthBaranof_topic-banned
I suggest a procedural close and renomination (if a non-topic-banned editor is so motivated.) Great Go-Buster! (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I very much doubt that this is in fact a gender-related controversy in the sense of Gamergate, but if it makes editors more comfortable, I'd be happy to replace NbSB as the nominator. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only sources I am seeing are this and the VICE piece above which has two sentences. Jezebel is part of the Gawker network and is not anything like an RS. I would not object to keeping if even one more source were found. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – just because a person received mostly negative coverage does not mean that it is not automatically non-notable. Indeed Rhododendrites also admitted that the sources provided can establish notability. If the problem is with my writing, the correct procedure is to WP:TNT it, not to delete it. I admit that my experience with BLPs is fairly limited. sst✈ 01:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The Daily Dot is generally considered reliable per discussions on WP:RSN. The HuffPost source is acceptable per WP:BLPSPS: "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." I see Jezebel being used on multiple BLPs related to feminism. sst✈ 01:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
      • "and each time she responded by telling the attendees to "shut the fuck up"" – this part does not require inline citations, per WP:FILMPLOT. The HuffPost source can safely be removed. sst✈ 01:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
      • All other uses of the HuffPost source, except the last paragraph, can also be safely removed as these have been backed by other sources. sst✈ 01:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @SSTflyer: Yes, Rhododendrites made a distinction that a source like Huffington Post can support notability, but isn't a reliable source for the purpose of a BLP. That they can establish notability doesn't mean that they do. But you've obviously sidestepped the entire substance of my point by highlighting only that part. Why should there be an exception to the explicit policy of not using blogs as the basis for a BLP? The point is that we don't even need to talk about notability because this article can't get past verifiability and BLP. Those are not WP:NEWSBLOGs. I would dare you to take them to WP:RSN and make the case that these sources are reliable for a BLP, let alone that they should serve as the sole basis for the BLP. Also, that you're reaching way over into WP:FILMPLOT should signal that something is amiss. This is about a person, not about a film. Generally speaking, a film's plot is not subject to WP:BLP and there is a presumption that the film's plot is part of the subject -- it is not the case that a video is presumed the subject of a biography. If you're treating it like a film, it's the video that's the subject, and you still have no reliable secondary sources. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep notable agitator/activist covered multiple sources. Easily passes notability criteria. --DHeyward (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
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.