Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keffals

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 keep. Rough consensus is that being the subject of an in-depth Washington Post profile, together with other sources, is enough for notability. Sandstein 07:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keffals

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

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

Lack of significant coverage per WP:N. Only 1 article sourced from a well-regarded reliable source (Source 1, WashingtonPost) as per

WP:NBASIC. PurpleTurdle (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)— PurpleTurdle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

  • Comment: nom has no edits outside this nomination. Likely
    WP:SPA. SWinxy (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Please address the lack of significant coverage of Keffals as per WP:N from reliable sources as per WP:RS and not that this is my first edit. I am a frequent enjoyer of Wikipedia and have noticed this article does not rise to certain levels in regard to writing quality and notability that Wikipedia usually maintains for its articles. PurpleTurdle (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)— PurpleTurdle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Is that why your first edit with a new account was to add a PROD to an article that clearly had various references in the article already, in direct violation of what PRODing an article is meant to be used for? SilverserenC 05:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not violate anything as per WP:Proposed Deletion. The article was nominated for deletion due to the lack of sources providing significant coverage to the article's subject. In only two sources is the article's subject not mentioned in passing. One is a mainstream reliable source, and the other is a college newspaper in which the notability can be argued, which is why this discussion page was created. PurpleTurdle (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)— PurpleTurdle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Only 1 article that does not mention her in passing. This is inaccurate.
  • Keep. Concur with the others concerned about SPA nominating this. Even that notwithstanding, as noted by the de-PRODder of this article, notability is shown in references, especially entire article in WaPo dedicated to subject. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep almost entirely out of spite for the nomination. --Golbez (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a reason other than pure spite? Alduin2000 posted a more expansive reasoning for why this article may not meet notability requirements. Thank you. PurpleTurdle (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)— PurpleTurdle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    No but I have decided I don't care. --Golbez (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are only publicly available if you mention your previous account(s). No editor starts editing Wikipedia with an AFD, knowing about Wikipedia policies. Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's the most popular trans twitch streamer and does a lot of trans activism. That makes her notable. Snokalok (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC) — Snokalok (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Being the most popular (debatable on metrics terms) or one of the most popular of 'x' doesn't mean that said subject warrants or deserves a Wikipedia article dedicated to themselves because of that merit. As I have already pointed out there are many YouTuber's with millions of subscribers who don't have articles due to lack of sourcing and I am willing to wager there are many popular YouTuber's/Twitch streamers/TikToker's etc. of 'x' nationality for example (you can pick any identity here) who don't have articles where this same argument would apply. In this case as already previously mentioned meets limited notability with only really one good source being decent with the others being of questionable quality.
    talk) 08:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Worth noting this IP's only contributions have been deliberately misgendering the subject of the article and this vote. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 08:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the WaPo article in combination with the other references is sufficient to show notability. Printfn (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The individual is the center of the WaPo article but in the rest of the cited material she is only mentioned in passing or the reputability of the publications is questionable. I question the motives and reasoning for this article's existence as well seeing as the individual's twitter mentions obtaining a wikipedia article in order to get verified on twitter: https://web.archive.org/web/20220630173516/https://twitter.com/suskeffals/status/1541538361504108544 MerlinsSister (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)— MerlinsSister (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Her tweet is irrelevant, as she didn't create the article or edit it. There's literally no policy on Wikipedia allowing the deletion of an article because the subject is happy about its existence or finds it useful. Edited to add: Her tweet (9:46 PM · Jun 27, 2022) came about a day after the first edit creating the article (20:29, 26 June 2022‎) and about half a day after the edit moving it from a draft into an actual article (09:51, 27 June 2022). It's clear from this that she didn't know it existed when tweeting. As far as the timing, this is also during the same day and the day after the publication of the Washington Post article about her (June 26, 2022 at 6:00 a.m. EDT) Chai T. Rex (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the other references are lacking in reliability. The only other reference which can be argued contribute to slight significance are from the student newspaper, Western University's The Gazette.
WP:BASIC. PurpleTurdle (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)— PurpleTurdle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
Yes, but it doesn't say "if the depth of coverage in any given article is not substantial", it says "in any given source". Multiple articles by the same source don't count as multiple sources, sure, but it can shift the depth of coverage from that source from slight to repeated and more significant. Chai T. Rex (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So which multiple independent sources, meeting reliability and significance requirements, combine to demonstrate notability? Sources 2, 5, 8 are from arguably reliable Western University's The Gazette. Source 5 contains one sentence referencing the subject. Source 8 contains no mention of the subject besides a picture. There is no focus on the article subject at all. Sources 4 & 7 do not meet reliability requirements. Source 6 is of no notability at all, a local politician running for local office is not notable. Source 3 meets reliability, but only contains a single quote from the article's subject, it does not contribute to notability at all. It is the same with sources 9 & 10, with 9 containing no mention of the subject besides a reference to a tweet and 10 containing one sentence pertaining to the subject. Source 11 is a reference to Source 1. Again, only one source, Source 1 (WaPo) definitely meets both reliability and significance, as per
WP:GNG. Source 2 can be argued on reliability and its contributions to notability. Which sources do you combine to reach notability? PurpleTurdle (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The struggle for transgender rights is a particularly hot topic right now, and I believe that the article was given such prominent placement because of that, as well as because, as far as transgender advocacy by transgender people goes, she's prominent in that sphere.
I don't believe she has much notability because of her actions considered without context. She's not anywhere near the top Twitch streamer. Her ratios by themselves are not newsworthy. And so on.
I believe that the notability of the fight for transgender rights is what significantly adds to her notability, as she is one of the leading individual advocates out of the marginalized people involved on one side of the issue.
This is about a struggle for and against the rights of a marginalized minority group, whose members will tend to be much less prominent because there aren't as many of them and because they're marginalized.
I don't think that it makes sense to say that the members of the marginalized group should have to meet contextless standards of notability, as that would mean that Wikipedia would give more prominence to the opponents to and allies of the marginalized community than the marginalized community members themselves, which is very likely to present a lopsided view of the issue.
I believe that the topic of transgender rights is suitably notable, and that the discussion should be about whether she is notable enough in that context, rather than notable enough without regard to that context. Chai T. Rex (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add a bit to that. The topic of transgender rights is notable enough, so Wikipedia should include, to attain a reasonable level of completeness, some prominent individual transgender advocates who are transgender themselves and what they've done to advocate for it. That's an important part of that topic. They shouldn't be excluded because they're not prominent in a contextless sense. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wether or not someone or something gets an article on Wikipedia is determined by
WP:GNG
, which must be met in order to consider a subject notable. This is determined by non-trivial secondary coverage by reliable sources. Inherited notability, the idea a subject must have an article because of something like a group they're apart of or their relation to a given matter, does not contribute to a subject's notability. Yes, the fight for trans rights is an important and notable one. But just because the article's subject is apart of this fight does not give notability. Again, notability is determined from coverage from reliable sources. It is great she's doing work for her community, but that by itself does not demonstrate notability. These guidelines for notability are not contextless, the "multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works" are the context.
More on inherent notability can be found on WP:INHERENT. PurpleTurdle (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't address
WP:NSUSTAINED. Many protesters and activists in the civil rights era also had one-time interviews that appeared on the front page of a prominent newspaper for a given day. I also agree with PurpleTurdle - a person that is even slightly prominent in the notable trans right movement doesn't make them notable in of itself. JungleEntity (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
AGF considerably strained by no less than 4 editors indistinguishable from SPAs, and an, on the face of it, transphobic IP.
AGF is not a licence to game the system. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand AGF is not a license to game the system. I have presented my reasoning for nominating this article for deletion and that is it. I could not care less wether or not I am deemed a SPA or associated with others. I am here to participate in discussion. PurpleTurdle (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chai T. Rex's source analysis. I think being the subject of a profile in The Washington Post goes a great deal to demonstrating notability. I also share the concerns of DanielRigal and many other editors about why a PROD followed by an AFD was the first edits made by the proposer. Given the harassment Keffals faces both on Twitch and Twitter, it is understandably suspicious. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I understand the concerns of SPAs, but I really think we should concern this AfD only on the merits of the articles itself. If users are bringing up good points, then those should be judged on their own merit, regardless if the account looks like an SPA. Many point out that the Washington Post article suffices for notability.
    WP:NSUSTAINED is established. Keffals may very well be notable, and other reliable sources may write full length articles about her in the future, but as of now, that doesn't seem to be the case. JungleEntity (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Meets
    WP:BASIC allows If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability so I think one piece of significant coverage plus various less compelling ones added together are good. There is a source in The Gamer above, and there are lots of sources talking about her run for political office as a member of the communist party - i.e. she is notable for multiple things. So that's the technical/policy argument. And the simple, common sense, encyclopaedic argument is more like: she got profiled in the Washington Post? That's about as notable as anyone can get, why are we even discussing this? I fear sexism or transphobia is a factor here. I've not seen any AfDs about cis men who appeared on the front page of WP and ran for political office. 14:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CT55555 (talk • contribs
    )
    Local politicians, especially those who ran locally and were not elected, do not guarantee notability, as per
    WP:BASIC, but only if those sources are reliable, independent of each other, and non-trivial, as discussed above. PurpleTurdle (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I have not said that she is notable as per
    WP:GNG, her political activities as just a small part of that. I think the coverage is in reliable sources, is non-trivial and I think that Washington Post and others are independent of her. I have considered your reply and I do not agree with it, I remain keep. All the best, CT55555 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: just found this article by CBC News about LondonFuse. Seems to suggest it is shutting down because it was refused grants because they refused to alter their political writing/reporting. Suggests to me that it can probably be trusted as a reliable local news source; CBC finding its shutting down important enough to cover also seems to suggest it was an important local news source. Might be relevant to assessing it as a source. Still not 100% sure if this is a good source or if it would provide enough significant coverage to push the page over to notability, but it would definitely make notability more plausible if it is a legit source.
    talk) 14:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. I can really only echo
    WP:GNG out of wack. -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2022 (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/Keffals&oldid=1096725431"