Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tavi Gevinson
From 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 Speedy keep as there are no stated valid reasons for deletion; extremely well-sourced. Semi-protection will be added to the page to solve the vandalism issue. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tavi Gevinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Information in article violates privacy of a minor WikiMrsP (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that every single sentence of the article is sourced to information published in mainstream news sources. Would you mind explaining which of the reasons for deletion you think the article falls under? If you have an issue with particular sentences in the article, they can be dealt with via regular editing rather than deletion. Holly25 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it breaches Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons, namely the presumption in favor of privacy, and the privacy of personal information. Personal and irrelevant information about this child continues to be added to this page, no matter how often it is removed. There is no way to remove this information without continually drawing attention to it. Privacy of a child should take precedence over mainstream media's definition of notability. She wishes to have the article removed. WikiMrsP (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can gather reading the article, the child has been the subject of interviews and appeared on the front cover of a magazine, all with her parents' permission. The presumption of privacy is for people not explicitly seeking publicity. How do you know she wants the article removed? (not that this would be a valid reason for deletion) Holly25 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The presumption of privacy is only for people who have not received publicity? Where does it say that? People keep entering personally identifiable and irrelevant information to this page, which she does want and thinks is "dumb". Because of the age of the subject, we should err on the side of caution and delete this article. From the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy: "under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy." WikiMrsP (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If a person has actively sought publicity in the form of interviews and front-page shoots, then of course there's no longer a presumption that the person wishes to remain low-key and unknown. The "presumption of privacy" is for the likes of crime victims and people involved in news coverage through no fault of their own. As this person is under 18, then yes we do have a greater responsibility to keep the information on the page pertinent and backed up by reliable sources. But that is an article content issue, not grounds for deletion. Holly25 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So she has to wait until she's a victim of crime before wikipedia will respect a child's right to privacy and remove her private information? This is so frustrating. We keep removing personal information about her, and people keep adding it back. Editing the content via normal channels is not helping to protect the safety and privacy of this young girl. Please delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMrsP (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If a person has actively sought publicity in the form of interviews and front-page shoots, then of course there's no longer a presumption that the person wishes to remain low-key and unknown. The "presumption of privacy" is for the likes of crime victims and people involved in news coverage through no fault of their own. As this person is under 18, then yes we do have a greater responsibility to keep the information on the page pertinent and backed up by reliable sources. But that is an article content issue, not grounds for deletion. Holly25 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The presumption of privacy is only for people who have not received publicity? Where does it say that? People keep entering personally identifiable and irrelevant information to this page, which she does want and thinks is "dumb". Because of the age of the subject, we should err on the side of caution and delete this article. From the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy: "under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy." WikiMrsP (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can gather reading the article, the child has been the subject of interviews and appeared on the front cover of a magazine, all with her parents' permission. The presumption of privacy is for people not explicitly seeking publicity. How do you know she wants the article removed? (not that this would be a valid reason for deletion) Holly25 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it breaches Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons, namely the presumption in favor of privacy, and the privacy of personal information. Personal and irrelevant information about this child continues to be added to this page, no matter how often it is removed. There is no way to remove this information without continually drawing attention to it. Privacy of a child should take precedence over mainstream media's definition of notability. She wishes to have the article removed. WikiMrsP (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, let me try to explain. This girl is actively seeking to become well known. She's doing interviews, she's had her photo on the front cover of a magazine, she's designed a t-shirt sold on the basis of her name. Thus we have on an article on her, and it doesn't get deleted on "privacy" grounds because she's already well-known for appearing in the mainstream press. "Private" information which isn't backed up by reliable sources can get deleted from the article straight away. But if the "private information" you're talking about is information which she's provided to an interviewer and had published in a major newspaper with her parents' permission -- then it's not really "private" any more, is it? It's in the public record. What kind of "personal information" are you referring to, specifically? Holly25 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of this article is requesting deletion. If you have any further questions, please email me. WikiMrsP (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can suggest is that you contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly (details here); we're just regular users, and we're not in any position to verify your credentials to make claims on the behalf of the subject. Holly25 (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You also have an option of making a request for permanent deletion of personal information at Requests for oversight. — Rankiri (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I also don't think that a valid reason for deletion was given. Wikipedia is not censored and the article seems to pass all key requirements of WP:BLP. It's relatively well-sourced, doesn't contain any defamatory information, and whatever basic personal facts it contains, they have already been published by several major news sources. — Rankiri (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subject is clearly notable, and if there are issues with the content of the article (I see none at the moment) they can be addressed via editing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's notion of notability is a joke. She's a kid who writes a blog about things she digs. Because our notoriously shallow and fickle mass culture filled some columns with stuff about her, her life is open to public scrutiny? Give me a break. There are thousands of real writers with prize winning books that don't have pages on Wikipedia. Philip Dray is a pulitzer finalist who won the Robert Kennedy Book Award for his excellent history of lynching in America. Where's his wikipedia page?WikiMrsP (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you click on Philip Dray you can create it yourself. He'd certainly pass notability, judging from all the news coverage he's generated. Holly25 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @WikiMrsP: That's a problem with our culture and what it pays attention to, not with Wikipedia. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's notion of notability is a joke. She's a kid who writes a blog about things she digs. Because our notoriously shallow and fickle mass culture filled some columns with stuff about her, her life is open to public scrutiny? Give me a break. There are thousands of real writers with prize winning books that don't have pages on Wikipedia. Philip Dray is a pulitzer finalist who won the Robert Kennedy Book Award for his excellent history of lynching in America. Where's his wikipedia page?WikiMrsP (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Nomination not based on a valid reason for deletion. If there is information in the article that violates WP:BLP, it can be removed—there's no rule saying that there can't be articles about minors period. And, as said above, Gevinson is already notable and has already been covered in mainstream media, so this article is not spreading anything that hasn't already been published in mainstream media. For example, name of the city she lives in (with a population over 50,000) is not dangerous identifying information like her address would be. Other than that (which I have already removed), the article contains no incriminating personal information, it just talks about her blogging activities and appearances in the media. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is exactly as dangerous. Look, my intention was not to further expose personal information about this kid. Please remove this thread.WikiMrsP (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you have said above that "personal information keeps being added to this page". Well, there are ways to deal with that other than deletion. First of all, there are many people watching the page to undo edits that add undue personal information. And if it ever becomes too much of a problem, it is always possible to protect the page so unregistered users cannot edit it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is exactly as dangerous. Look, my intention was not to further expose personal information about this kid. Please remove this thread.WikiMrsP (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (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.