Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Chen

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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Lauren Chen

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Lauren Chen (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)

This BLP was created following the announcement that Chen has been indicted by the DOJ for disseminating pro-Russian propaganda. All the sources used in the article discuss the indictment, and the article's primary focus is the indictment. A draft currently exists, which directs back to this page. I have searched for coverage prior to September 1 but have yet to find anything to establish notability (which is honestly surprising to me). I found a few academic journal articles that mention Chen, but there is no SIGCOV. Otherwise, internet sources appear to be primary. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Crime. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  This page should not be deleted. Only information that is not real. Information that IS real and MISSING should be added.

  Wikipedia is not about deleting what is not convenient for one or another but for documenting facts and history.

  If this is deleted then why not everything about or referencing the Holocaust? It is something that we don't like remembering. But it is there so we don't make mistakes from the past! 188.92.254.84 (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Academic publications mentioning Chen: "is the “lite” in “alt-lite?” The discourse of white vulnerability and dominance among YouTube’s reactionaries", "Streaming to transgress: the racial politics of reactionary YouTubers and their audiences", and "Right-Wing Populism and Gender" (Significa liberdade added these sources around the time of the nomination)
• See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenet Media
• Comment almost TOOSOON. About all I could find from before the scandal is this [1], I don't think it's enough... She will almost certainly be notable for the scandal. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  The article cites to various RSs that predate the indictment. They may have been been added after your review. John2510 (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep A simple date-restricted Google search reveals that Chen is widely-known and has been widely discussed across the internet for several years. Until the recent Russian influence allegations, her actions weren't such that she would have reason to be discussed much on what Wikipedia considers RSs. Now they are and that is likely to continue. While WP is "not the news," this appears to be a significant event, the background of which will be of broad public interest for a significant period of time. Chen's personal and professional history will be of importance to readers as they seek to learn about the events. John2510 (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  As you mentioned, Chen has been active on the internet for quite some time, which I is why I was surprised there don't seem to be strong sources to establish notability beyond this event. Looking at the present article, there isn't enough coverage RSs for notability, which is the primary concern. At present, 8/33 sources were published before the scandal broke, none of which establish notability:

  1. "Man threatening Lauren Chen for being against reparations saying she will be "dealt with"" is a broken link, even in the archive
  2. "‘Barbie’ Largely Praised For Feminist Themes—But Draws Anger From The Anti-Woke" has a single sentence about Chen: "BlazeTV host Lauren Chen accused studios of hiding how “INSUFFERABLY WOKE” Barbie is in promotional materials, also pointing to the film’s anti-patriarchal themes."
  3. "Republicans Voting for Bill That Could Make 'Bible Illegal' Outrages MAGA" also has a single sentence about Chen: "'If you support this 'antisemitism' hate speech bill not only are you spitting on the first amendment you are openly denying the Bible as well,' wrote Blaze TV host Lauren Chen."
  4. "Right-wingers start to turn on this pro-Trump propaganda group" has a single sentence about Chen: "TPUSA contributor Lauren Chen promoted white nationalist Nick Fuentes' thoughts on the Israel-Hamas war, calling his take on the conflict 'balanced and rational.'"
  5. "Conservative influencers battle over Israel, ‘America First,’ and antisemitism after Hamas attack" has a single sentence about Chen: "Lauren Chen, another TPUSA influencer, re-posted a Fuentes clip condemning the 'repugnant and evil' Israeli government — and called it a 'more balanced and rational take on Israel/Palestine than the entire political class.'"
  6. "Lauren Chen on why the Golden Globes was miserable to watch" is a primary source.
  7. "New 'Barbie' movie is TOXIC feminism to a T – 'Ken is just a great accessory'" is a primary source.
  8. "‘They STILL blame the right!’ Lauren Chen blasts MSM’s ‘very violent rhetoric’ after Trump assassination attempt" is parroting what Chen said in an interview, so it's a primary source.

  If she is notable because of the event solely, then a separate article should be created about the investigation (as is being discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenet Media) with a redirect. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Assuming that's true, while we're limited to using only RSs as authorities for statements made in articles, I don't think we're required to ignore entirely the vast non-RS universe in considering the general noteworthiness of subject matter. It would be disingenuous to say that someone isn't notable where there is an indisputable plethora of diverse non-RS discussion. John2510 (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  What would non-RS discussion be? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  YouTube, in Vlogs, podcasts, etc. Under WP rules, those sources can't be used as evidence of the truth of statements they include, but should certainly be evidence that such statements were made. John2510 (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  That cannot be used to expand the article, therefore it's not notability. Anyone can make a statement, so such stuff isn't documented unless an RS sees it important. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I strongly agree with John2510 This will most likely be a significant event for a while and she will be a significant person at the center of it. Also, as John wrote, A simple date-restricted Google search reveals that Chen is widely-known and has been widely discussed across the internet for several years. Also the nominator says that " All the sources used in the article discuss the indictment, and the article's primary focus is the indictment". I believe she might be mistaken as there are at least three that discuss her exclusively. PaulPachad (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Conservatism, Internet, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per John2510 and PaulPachad. Sal2100 (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per PaulPachad and John2510 Andre🚐 18:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep I've seen innumerable articles in the last day or about her being a Russian agent. This nomination really surprises me, given how massive this story is. Nfitz (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Then create an article about the event? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Sources like Media Matters and Tampa Bay Times have coverage of Chen before this came to light. SWinxy (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  The Tampa Bay Times article has some good coverage, though it's worth noting most of the commentary regarding Chen comes from direct quotations from her videos, which wouldn't count toward notability; however, the source itself I'd say counts toward notability. I'd also question Media Matters as a questionable source given its partisan nature, especially as it introduces Chen as "an anti-LGBTQ bigot who uses her social media accounts to spread conspiratorial, far-right misinformation". Regardless of whether that's true, less inflammatory sources would be better. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Easily sourced coverage prior to recent events, which is overkill considering that something being recent is not a valid criteria for deletion. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Chen easily has enough coverage in the media to warrant a Wikipedia article, especially considering recent events. If anything, she should've already been here. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Mungo Kitsch: Does the current coverage fall under WP:BLP1E/WP:CRIME, though? Although Chen has been prominent online for a while, sources haven't been provided to establish notability prior to this event. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Coverage is sufficient. Cortador (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per others JSwift49 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep One could perhaps make the case that Lauren Chen is a person only known for one event, I don't think that ultimately holds up. To the Tampa Bay Times link above we could add [2][3][4] and also [5][6][7]. XOR'easter (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Each of these sources provide 1-3 sentences on Chen each. Can you find anything with SIGCOV? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  I can keep looking, but I don't think policy/guidelines/common practice demands it (even setting aside how the "SIG" in WP:SIGCOV is oft in the eye of the beholder). We have all the coverage one could ask for in order to get over the general notability bar thanks to the incidents of the past few days. The only question is whether we should cover the person in a page about the person, or elsewhere. Her having played a noteworthy role in multiple prior dust-ups favors the former. XOR'easter (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Has Chen (or Tenet) been officially convicted of any crimes? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  The legal papers just dropped today, nothing's even been started, trial-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep: Please note this story from The Hill from 2019: [8] Please close this AfD. Xofg (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Clearly notable enough for inclusion. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 06:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - this discussion should be closed Superb Owl (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense 2600:1700:1A32:EE30:A41D:C079:4CBE:5596 (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep There are multiple secondary sources that discussed her influence in right wing media spheres before recent events such as Rebecca Lewis' report "Alternative Influence" and especially the book "The women of the far right" by Eviane Leidig in addition to the publications that were already mentioned. The criteria in WP:BLP1E aren't met. 3iz5 (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I unfortunately believe we should keep this up as a reference for people needing to understand who she is and what she stands for. I believe it is necessary to document the bad as well as the good. I was watching news coverage and that is how I found out about the wiki page. If she is indicted as a part of this current legal process, there will be more that should be added to it in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeMeek (talk • contribs) 04:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep. Subject is alleged by US Federal authorities to have participated in significant organized transborder criminal activity, which is even relevant to the largest ICC war crime investigations so far - if the US DoJ narrative is basically accurate (and so far everything checkable checks out consistently) she would fulfil WP:PERP more easily if anything than Michael McLaney or Gus Greenbaum. Notably:
  1. Indictment directly pertaining to subject (as partially knowing accessory to the main accused) being speedily and thoroughly acted upon by US and Canadian law enforcement and Youtube indicates these all consider the allegations well warranted
  2. Aforementioned law enforcement and social media actions directly affected subject.
  3. Subject highly likely to be found even more deeply involved in organized criminal activity involving at least Canada, the USA, Hungary and Russia, as soon as Canadian law enforcements publicly take steps to act against her.
  4. Such scrutiny will predictably lead to the publishing of such an abundance of WP:RS to outweigh the detriment of them being mostly primary and/or newsmedia RS.
  5. A glance over the "forfeiture" parts of the indictment quickly demonstrates that this seizure of assets associated with Chen/Donovan is certain to have major ramifications for wikinotable BLP articles such as Dave Rubin, Tim Pool, Lauren Southern et al., who suddenly find themselves with the bulk (perhaps up to 90%) of their operational cash flow cut with no prior warning

I think the preeding points do strongly advocate considering the delete request misguided, if not frivolous.

Furthermore, until extremely recently the Wikipedia page on subject did not even exist, while RationalWiki had a page on her since 15 November 2018‎, which as of now has 73 sources, not a few of which fulfil WP:RS. The sheer volume of information in the RW article alone a) demonstrates that subject is considered of elevated and long-standing relevance for at least part of the "fact-based community", and b) could expand the Wikipedia article considerably with non-recent information in particular (Tenet Media indictment being only a small addendum to the RW article).

Consequently, it is to be expected that subject's notability will increase significantly as pertinent criminal investigations continue and ramify, and all things considered I strongly advocate that, for the time being, a) a current-event warning and other appropriate warnings (BLP?) and possibly editing restrictions (certified good-faith editors only?) ought to be added, and b) the RationalWiki article be mined for information and sources suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and the present article expanded, and copyedited for quality, accordingly.

tl;dr: "If Frank Wirtanen existed, would he have been notable enough for Wikipedia?"

100% Keep so far and the extended circumstances of this RfD also suggest it is not a bad idea to check the nominator's log for bad-faith editing activity. 5 ct and Doppleganger says we are dealing with a network here whose mission includes targeted falsification of trusted public sources. Calling such people and their helpers "sworn enemies of Wikipedia and all it stands for" is not that much too dramatically un-encyclopedic, and, sadly, "aiders and abetters of severe crimes against humanity" looks like it is a factual description of Tenet and their influencer portfolio. Vigilance is thus advised: Wikipedia should not be like Tim Pool and freely waive its due diligence here. Dysmorodrepanis2 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dysmorodrepanis2, the extended circumstances of this RfD also suggest it is not a bad idea to check the nominator's log for bad-faith editing activity. is an outrageous personal attack on an active new page patroller who is quite familiar with the guidelines for deletion discussions. Please remember to WP:AGF, thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: there are a lot of keep !votes on this AfD but few engage seriously with wikipedia policies or the concerns of the nominator. Those arguing for keep, if you could address issues of WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME, that would be very helpful. It is very obvious that we will be covering Lauren Chen on wikipedia somewhere. The question at hand is whether it is appropriate to have a standalone biography for her, given the WP:BLP concerns. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Here is my attempt to directly address this: WP:BLP1E means that all three of these conditions need to be met, to delete this.
  

  Direct quote of the WP:BLP1E

We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met

• 1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
     
  2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
     
  3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

Argument for each condition:
1- There are reliable sources that cover her in three separate events: see: here here, and here,
2- She will not remain a low profile individual, as this case will continue to evolve, and in either case, she was not a low profile individual to begin with.
3. The event is very significant

In this case, every single condition is not met, let alone, just one condition not being met. In this case, therefore, it seems clear that it should not be deleted on the basis of WP:BLP1E.

• PaulPachad (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  That seems quite clear and decisive. Does anyone have a counter-argument to that? John2510 (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Merge: to an article about the "Russian influence peddling" or something similar. I don't see much notability as youtuber before she was suspended, due to the lack of coverage. The Tampa Bay article is fine, but almost 90% to be found is about the new "event" regarding her allegedly taking Russian money. I don't see her as notable except for the allegations. I seriously doubt she'll be the only person caught in this "event". I'm not even sure drafting would help at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, Oaktree b! Do you think the "Russian interference in the 2024 United States elections" article would be an appropriate place to merge, or would there be a better/different article that focuses more directly on this incident? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that would cover it. It seems to be a general campaign against the US, election or not. I suppose that might work for now, until we have more details around the entirety of the disinformation campaign. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a Kremlin backed, right wing influencer attemting to hide her online profiles. DO NOT ALLOW HER TO DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.217.34 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Lauren Chen may be attempting to delete this page to stop others from learning about the serious accussations against her. Kiluvitar101 (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I've done a date limited google search, from December 2023 to August 2024 [9] to try and filter out the recent noise... There just isn't enough about her in RS. A ton in the GBNews [10], which seems like OAN and the like, I'd not call it a RS. There's the Singapore piece I linked in my first comment, this in the Daily Beast [11], which is a marginal source. Even in the years before that, the Tampa Bay article is all there is [12]. She was just another opinionated person online that no one noticed (outside of her core audience), until this scandal happened. She's just not notable, at this point in time. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Meets significant coverage IMO with reliable source articles about her and/or mentioning her going back to 2019 being cited. Kiwichris (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Swinxy's sources and Paul's analysis above. I commend the nominator for her courage and would not oppose a merge. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge based on the comments above, it is clear that editors are politically motivated to "Keep" and not making fact-based recommendations. This page belongs in a catalog related to suspected Russian influencing. I am a right-wing media consumer and I have never heard of Lauren Chen until the scandal. This scandal constitutes the majority of her notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B11E:FABB:B905:BD29:9318:CCEF (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  it is clear that anybody making this type comments is politically motivated. Is there something false in this page? Is it documenting the reality? Then why do you want to delete it? Do you want to cover it up? As a right wing voter are you not agreeing with Trump buddy Elon Musk about freedom of speech? Now you want to delete what is not in your interest? 188.92.254.84 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  IPv4, please remember to WP:AGF and don't accuse others of attempting some kind of political cover-up for saying something innocuous like "the scandal constitutes the majority of her notoriety". -- asilvering (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  To preserve the integrity (what little is left) of WP... this article which was hastily made after the scandal, and appears to be primarily about the allegations, should be merged with an already exsisting page dedicated to other such allegations. It's pretty straightforward. Now you're going on erratically about political figures that have nothing to do with the article or the scandal. You're proving my point. 2600:1015:B11E:FABB:B905:BD29:9318:CCEF (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Merge with Tenet Media There were insufficient sources to create an article before she was mentioned in an indictment. Most of the material in the article is a duplication of Tenet Media, the company she co-founded with her husband. I'm surprised no one has created an article about her husband, so they could cut and paste most of this article over there.
  After merging the article, it may be that Chen becomes notable in her own right. In that case her subsection in Tenet Media would expand so that a daughter article would make sense.
  It's possible that the DOJ will follow their example in the Russian troll farm story. Drop the charges against Russian nationals and never charge anyone in the U.S. If so, there may be nothing to add to the story as Chen and her husband slip back into obscurity.
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. — The Anome (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:HEY. I understand that someone might have thought this was a case of BLP1E, but after all the secondary sources and ongoing coverage that have been found about the subject, no reasonable person would believe this person is not notable. I recall that Procul Harem was nominated years ago, but even then it was because of ignorance. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per The Anome. Isi96 (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly passes GNG now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Close this as a SNOW keep.There's just one day left, so I say let it formal close. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2024 (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.