Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Patiodweller (talk | contribs) at 18:32, 12 August 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

10 August 2019

Jessica Yaniv waxing case

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Jessica Yaniv waxing case (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Highly contested AfD with 54 participants was closed with the following reasoning: Although the numerical tally is about even between those who want to keep and those who want to delete this article, the arguments invoking NOTNEWS (and, to a lesser extent also BLP1E), in combination with BLP concerns lead me to close this as delete.

This reasoning is entirely subjective to the closing admin. There was no consensus for deletion, and choosing the following arguments from delete! votes was poor judgment. BLP concerns do not apply when The Guardian, The Times and The Herald among others covered it. Or are you going to rev-del links to The Guardian as BLP violations? WP:NOTNEWS isn't a strong argument either because it's a case setting sort of a precedent in transgender rights and ethics in the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal - hence many medias discuss it. Furthermore, I was surprised to see it tilt towards deletion at this phase because there has been WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE during the case and the article got better sources as it was being discussed.

I did not participate in the AfD, but I believe it should be overturned for these reasons. Pudeo (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• (involved) comment all of these sources were discussed in the AFD. WP:BLP applies to information about living people, and the Tribunal hasn't made a decision, so the argument that this case has set a precedent is implausible. I don't see any evidence of new or continuing coverage from reliable outlets.

The only reason we even had this discussion was because a sockpuppet acount ignored the objections from multiple editors and made an end run around a broad agreement that JY shouldn't really be named on Misplaced Pages. The suggestion offered during the last last DRV discussion about Yaniv should be applied here: let somebody gather high quality sources and make a case at WP:AFC. The burden for finding consensus should be on the editors who want to create this. Nblund 20:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. The closing statement is "the arguments invoking NOTNEWS (and, to a lesser extent also BLP1E), in combination with BLP concerns lead me to close this as delete." For me that's not really the point. The point is that very few people on the keep side engaged with that argument. A remarkably large number of keep !voters did little more than say sources + coverage = article. That's clearly not the point when regard is had to NOTNEWS and related policies and guidelines. That means a closing admin has no choice but to give less weight to !votes like "Keep. This got enough coverage to be notable", "Keep since subject easily, and for some unfortunately, passes the relevant notability criteria.", "Keep the article passes WP:SIGCOV & WP:GEOSCOPE", "Keep.This article absolutely passes notability" and "Keep. In the UK, this event has received significant mainstream coverage". Those quotes were the opening sentences of the final five keep !votes. The nomination was addressed at an entirely different matter. Those five !votes, and others, are close to irrelevant. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's look at the 4 criteria for not-news: (1) There was no original reporting in the article, as all statements were sourced. (2) There was no routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities; on the contrary, the sources ranged from August 2018 to August 2019 and included non-Canadian media such as The Economist. (3) Who's who was about the bare minimum to explain the facts of the case. Much, much more was deleted under WP:BLP arguments (i.e., note the material not deleted certainly passed the constant and immediate BLP policing, and credit should be given to those editors who spent hours day and night ensuring any cites which might even be tangentially BLP issues got deleted within minutes, if not seconds). (4) Diary: "news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." A review of the article will conclude it is not a diary. Conclusion: claims that the article did not pass WP:NOTNEWS are not correct. XavierItzm (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment for now - the talk page that was deleted contained significant evidence for this case at ANI. Eighteen editors have spoken in favor of a topic ban for the editor in question prior to this article getting deleted, starting here. The editor in question was one of the delete !votes in the AfD discussion (they later crossed it out just to change it to speedy delete right below) and they commented extensively throughout the discussion. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn - Involved - I really don't understand how the closer came to their conclusion. Per WP:AFD, If consensus seems unclear the outcome can be listed as No consensus (with no effect on the article's status) or the discussion may be relisted for further discussion.. This means that the only way the article should have resulted in Delete is if consensus supports delete. Absent a consensus for delete the article is either kept or can be renominated for deletion. My question for the closing editor is how can they view this as anything other than no consensus? Clearly on the number of opinions this was no solid consensus.

24 editors favored keep (I'm including all forms of keep including merge unless the editor said "delete or merge")

20 editors favored delete (no merge, the article and talk page are salted).

4 favored "delete or merge" (the article goes but the discussion and possibly content stays available)

Based on weight of numbers this is clearly no consensus. What about strength of argument? The closing editor offered scant details of their thinking only stating that they were swayed by NOTNEWS and BLP1E. Perhaps but that means they felt that 24 editors couldn't come up with a reasonably convincing counter argument. Given the bits spilled that seems unlikely. Notnews isn't convincing given the possible ramifications the case could have when people talk about balancing the rights of protected classes vs the rights of otherwise uninvolved individuals. This case is getting extensive coverage so "not news" seems weak to me. Same with the BLP1E. If nothing else the closing editor must provide a far more detailed justification to explain why the "keep" arguments were not only not sufficient to result in a "keep" based on weight of argument, but were so poor as to fail to establish "no consensus". When 54 editors opine about a topic and seem to be evenly split the closing editor must offer some very strong closing case if they are going to say, in effect, "slightly more than half of you were so wrong as to not even warrant a no-consensus decision". Springee (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Why wp:NOTAVOTE isn't a reasonably reply: Yes, consensus isn't a vote but weight of opinions logically does matter. Consider a hypothetical case where just one editor favored delete but offered an argument that was the sum of the best of those in favor of delete. Now how many here can honestly say they would accept delete if the actual tally was 53:1 for keep? Certainly at some point weight of numbers matters. NOTAVOTE protects from the deciding firmly for or against in a case where the numbers are roughly evenly split. What it does not do it allow us to ignore the no consensus option.

The following from NOTAVOTE apply here

Polls may be helpful in coming to a consensus and in evaluating when a consensus exists, but consensus can change over time. Editors who disagree with a consensus opinion may continue to civilly disagree in an effort to change community consensus. Editors who appear to be in the majority should make an effort to continue discussions and attempts to reach as wide an agreement as possible within Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.

If a straw poll is inconclusive, or if there is significant disagreement about whether the question itself was fair, then no consensus results from the poll. The solution is to seek wider input or use alternative means of discussion and deliberation. Springee (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm including all forms of keep including merge unless the editor said "delete or merge" That's a silly way to total !votes. When assessing consensus in a close situation, you have to look at their actual argument; in those situations, it's far more common for merge !votes to get counted as delete than as keep, especially if they echo the arguments for deletion (as most of the merge comments in that discussion do.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a perfectly reasonable way to group things. "Merge" and "Keep" both retain the article contents and edit history. "Delete" removes the article and talk page history from Misplaced Pages. That is why I chose that way to break things up. Springee (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn -uninvolved- Just looking at the numbers should have resulted in a non-consensus which should have been a keep. There is no BLP issue, the subject is in the news and the sources are well sourced and RS, not tabloids. It's also not a BLP1E because this is indeed it is getting far and extensive coverage and the fact that it had gag orders, worldwide news, etc. Further, I just want to echo many of Springee's points above, there is a current ANI discussion about one of the editors who took part in the AFD, and further to that, the numbers of the editors, while, yes, we don't vote, but to delete with the numbers of people opining was not correct or based in sound policy and should be overturned. Sir Joseph 02:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn on two grounds: (1) the closer is wrong that the arguments on the delete side were stronger, and (2) due to behavior issues by a participant and edit warring, the AfD should be considered a "mistrial." (1) Counting the !votes, the nominator, disregarding the sock and the SPA, and counting the "or merge" !votes with their primary preference, I count 21 for keep, 2 for merge, and 20 for delete. The vast majority of the keep !votes say specifically that it is notable. Obviously, this should be taken as them saying that it meets WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. These are not irrelevant at all. On the delete side, we have a fair number of weak arguments. One said it was POV, one called it tabloid nonsense. Some stated that being an ongoing or single event was a problem, but that is not necessarily so. Some invoked WP:BLP1E, but this has to do with whether a person is notable aside from an event; for the event itself, WP:NEVENT is what we go by. WP:NOTNEWS is also being misused. That is from the page "What Misplaced Pages is not"; the point there is that "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages", we do not engage in original reporting, and we do not note every detail. In other words, we are not a news service. But at the top it does say, "Editors are encouraged...to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." NOTNEWS does not mean we do not cover any recent or current events. The relevant notability criteria are GNG and NEVENT, and far more keep comments than delete ones engaged with that. (2) As I referred to above, at ANI, and especially beginning here, there is a very relevant discussion going on involving an editor who !voted and who commented heavily in this AfD. The accusations involve bullying and driving away other editors from this topic area. The outcome could easily have been affected by this. 18 editors wish to see that editor's topic ban reinstated; if that editor had not participated, the outcome, again, could have been different. What is more, there was significant edit warring going on during the AfD, and some participants may have seen an unnecessarily expunged article missing important RS. With these factors, it seems the AfD did not take place fairly. Because of both the existing AfD arguments mentioned earlier and the irregularities in the process, this deletion should be overturned. I did !vote in the AfD, but did not comment otherwise, nor was I involved in the article itself or its talk page. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn uninvolved. Clear no consensus for deletion. Frankly that looks like a supervote. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment (involved) - Most overturns invoke vote counts but this is !vote. I maintain NOTNEWS and NEVENT apply and the deletion was correct. I fear this is more about the users involved (Fae, Rhinocera) than the article itself. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn - One person shouldn’t have deleted a whole article completely when there was such a high amount of evenly split !votes. Looks like a no consensus/keep according to me.—NØ 08:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This is going to be a difficult DRV to close since the AfD was well-attended and there's already a number of !voters here who were involved. I won't be !voting here since I voted delete in the AfD, but there are some odd procedural concerns I want to point out to the closer: we just closed a DRV on the person's former name here, and there have been several attempts to create an article about the individual involved in the past. I actually think the best course of action here is what S Marshall (talk · contribs) suggested at the original DRV, which is to cover this as neutrally as possible in Transgender rights in Canada (but without any redirects in terms of name) as the event itself is notable enough to cover based on the international press. As I believe I noted in my !vote, the article here has been more about the person involved with the case than the actual case, and as the article itself noted, commentators believe it is unlikely to set wide precedent since it's so unusual. Based on that, I don't think the close was procedurally incorrect, and there's other better places for this information to exist. SportingFlyer T·C 08:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment from closer: There's one thing that I forgot to include in my close rationale: WP:NOTAVOTE. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I participated in the AfD so I think it's customary that I don't vote in this deletion review, but I have to say - I would have posted this on DRV if someone else didn't get to it first. This was clearly an AfD that favored Keep (or, at the very least, no consensus) , but it was summarily closed without explaining why in any detail. The article is actually quite good and well supported by citations from The Economist, Canadian Broadcasting Company, PinkNews and more over the last year. The closing admin also failed to consider that the article was nominated for deletion only 30 minutes after it was created. The closure was clearly a super vote. Cosmic Sans (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  To be honest, I doubt the fact that it was nominated for deletion 30 minutes after creation mattered at the closing phase, since much of the discussion took place after the article was improved. But yes, I'd agree that it looked like a weak "keep" or "no consensus". But it's the classic problem: if you think the article should be deleted, "no consensus" is not enough because it defaults to status quo which is that the article stays. --Pudeo (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the fact that it was nominated for deletion only 30 minutes after it was created matters because many of the initial Delete votes were cast when the article was nothing more than a stub. This means that early Delete votes should carry much less weight than they ordinarily would because the article barely existed at the time they voted. By the end of the AfD, the article was well-supported with citations from many reputable publications like The Economist. It's a notable court case. The situation drew a lot of controversy because the plaintiff is controversial in their own right, but the fact remains that the article is well-supported. Cosmic Sans (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn(Restore) --Sharouser (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse - I'm seeing a lot of headcounts here, but this seems like a good example of why consensus != numbers. Especially problematic considering this AfD saw off-wiki canvassing. The disruption caused by some of the participants may take up space, but doesn't obscure the central arguments, already summarized by RK, et al. (Since others seem to be doing this, FYI I supported deletion). — Rhododendrites \\ 16:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn The votes were evenly split, the reasons for deletion are debatable, the article itself was valuable, with unbiased information about a significant case from reputable sources such as the Economist and Canadian Broadcasting Company.--Chocobisc (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC) — Chocobisc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A newly registered user's first edit is a DR? User:Chocobisc's typing skills are also that of an experienced editior. I'm calling out Chocobisc as a SOCK, but I don't know who. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a sock, I've been watching this article because of the marked for deletion notice on it. I signed up because I wanted to add to it or at least contribute on the talk, I was observing and learning the way things work. The article was deleted before I felt confident in how to contribute. I understand my vote probably counts for less because I'm new though. Chocobisc (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably this case. Sockpuppetry does their cause no favors. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hurting this cause is the last thing I want to do, I'm sorry. I don't want to derail this any further, please do an investigation if needed. I live in South Australia though, not Germany, and my IP should show this.Chocobisc (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn. There is no evident consensus in the discussion, and the overwhelming majority of the !votes on both sides are policy- and guideline-based. However, BLP1E's primary purpose is to distinguish between situations when an article should be written about an individual and when coverage should be to an article about the event from which their possibile notability arises; it has its weakest, if any, force in assessing whether an event receiving extensive RS coverage merits an article. Similarly, BLP concerns are weaker when an individual purposefully injects themself into a central role in a public controversy where negative responses are both foreseeable and inevitable. Therefore, the article on the case should be undeleted, with the individual name article be retained only as a redirect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

where negative responses are both foreseeable and inevitable: This sort of sounds like carving out BLP exceptions for people who are "askin for it", which is definitely not a policy and probably shouldn't be. BLP applies to content about living people, particularly when a person is not widely known, and when the material in question is potentially harmful. Nblund 18:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps some sort of mention in the BCHRT article? He's basically playing them like a harmonica. HalfShadow 18:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@HalfShadow: Who is? The article creator? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Yaniv. He's basically turned it into an extortion racket - anyone says or does something he dislikes, he screams "Transphobic! Human rights violation!" and rushes to set up a complaint. He's gaming the system. HalfShadow 19:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@HalfShadow: Per MOS:GENDERID and WP:GENDERID, the pronoun is "she". Regardless of your personal beliefs, please do not misgender people on Misplaced Pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn This clearly passes WP:GNG. The arguments in the AfD against this do not hold water.--Mister Stan (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC) — Mister Stan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. However,Mister Stan has been an editor since 2010.
• Comment - A quick google for '"jessica yaniv" wikipedia' shows the off-wiki canvassing has commenced for this DRV, too, now. — Rhododendrites \\ 20:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Off Wiki Canvassing" as you characterize it, can also serve to alert people who are active and semi-active Misplaced Pages editors (like myself) of issues that are significant. After reading the original AFD discussion and this Deletion Review, I don't have enough information yet to make a definitive comment here, but second hand (on Misplaced Pages) information does make the AFD close sound questionable. (It does seem bizarre that there are no copies of deleted articles restored somewhere for people to look at in the event of a deletion review.) Unless you are seeing evidence of obvious sock puppetry, I would suggest—as the banner on the top of this discussion urges—to assume good faith. Carl Henderson (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Carl Henderson: WP:APPNOTE lays out the appropriate ways to notify editors of a discussion. Notifying people off wiki (particularly in the forums and formats I'm seeing) is not one of them. Your good intentions don't change the fact that you are coming to this discussion because of inappropriate canvassing efforts. Nblund 22:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund: Misplaced Pages does not operated in a cultural vacuum; when Misplaced Pages deletes an article about a controversial case it often becomes a newsworthy item in and of itself. It is not necessarily canvassing for people to report on or comment on such issues. I found out about this issue via Instapundit, a very old blog (now a group blog) with a conservative to libertarian slant that functions as both as a new aggregator and a point-of-view comment platform for the bloggers. Where I learned about the issue should not serve to discount any well reasoned (I hope) comment I make on the issue. Carl Henderson (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a disappointing response. So this post, presumably.... The problem for us isn't that people write about Misplaced Pages. The problem for us is the extent to which normal consensus-building !votes are affected by off-wiki canvassing to people likely to !vote a particular way. We can't stop (and shouldn't stop) people from writing about Misplaced Pages, but if a large group of Wikipedians can be mobilized based solely on ideology by off-wiki sites, that's problematic for our model of decision-making/conflict resolution, and why closing admins need to take it into account. — Rhododendrites \\ 00:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The AfD was linked off-wiki but that happened in (give or take) the last 24 hours or so of the deletion discussion. There were many reasoned Keep votes beforehand and even after. If there are random IP editors showing up after it was linked, then perhaps that's a consideration but a link off-wiki is not a reason to discard the many Keep votes and arguments set forth by plenty of established editors. Cosmic Sans (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse An article passing WP:GNG does absolutely not indicate that it passesWP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E; WP:GNG itself includes a statement that makes clear that WP:GNG is no reason to keep an article that does not pass WP:NOT. The comments by the "keep" side apply the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages incorrectly by ignoring WP:NOT and focusing on WP:GNG and have been appropiately given little weight.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse. The discussions attracted heavy external attention (putting the numerical totals in doubt); more generally, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP together are a strong argument for deletion and one that requires serious arguments in response - this article essentially threw a spotlight on a non-notable individual based on a single news cycle worth of coverage for a relatively low-profile event. Simply passing WP:GNG or having coverage (arguments which the vast majority of the keep !votes relied on) is insufficient per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and almost none of the keep !votes even attempted to address the obvious WP:BLP issues. Deletion discussions are not a vote; especially in a situation like this, where there has been substantial external lobbying, it's important to look at the relative strength of the arguments being made. --Aquillion (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Nitpick: Maybe you didn't mean it literally, but "a single news cycle" doesn't seem accurate. According to a comment from XavierItzm above, the article had sources going back to August 2018. Colin M (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn: we have policies and this was a clear WP:NOCONSENSUS keep. Lightburst (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:GNG is a guideline that does have no effect on an article meeting WP:NOT. WP:NHC says that arguments that contradict policies or are common fallacies are discounted. Comments that answer with "Is notable" to the assertion "Doesn't pass WP:NOT" contradict WP:GNG because that guideline clarifies that it is not sufficient for a topic to meet its requirements to deserve an article if WP:NOT is being violated.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Lurking shadow It is very clear from this deletion review, and from the 54 editors participating in the AfD that you are reiterating the minority position that did not have support from the majority of editors here or in the AfD. I of course disagree. In any event it WP:NOT is a guideline. Lightburst (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Lightburst:Please click WP:GNG. You see that it is named a guideline. Now check WP:NOT. You'll see that it is a policy.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

a policy that the majority of editors believe does not apply here. Misplaced Pages is full of contradictory policies. And policies which require reasonable editors to interpret. The majority interpret differently that you on this AfD. Here is guideline for you. WP:GEOSCOPE We disagree maybe we can leave it there. Lightburst (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. That was a proper justification by the closer because the page is indeed an obvious example of NOTNEWS. That was clearly a kind of content that appears in newspapers, but not an encyclopedic content. Are we going to record here every incident that was published in several newspapers, regardless to enduring notability? I hope not. That is the essence of "Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper" and "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Yes, sure, a closer should exercise judgement in such cases, and that was good judgement. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the above user !voted Delete in the AfD. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close as no consensus. The discussion had a very high level of participation with solid WP:PAG based arguments on both sides. There is no way a consensus exists for either deletion or keep. I am generally a fan of RK and appreciate admins who are willing to take on lengthy and often complicated discussions in need of closing. But I have to disagree strongly, though respectfully, with this close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn I found a copy of the "Jessica Yaniv waxing case" article on a site that mirrors Misplaced Pages dated 08/09/2019, and have reviewed it. Based on my review and the conversation on Wiki, I believe the decision to close the AFD with a "Delete" was in error and should be reversed. The deleted article is well-sourced, and clearly covered newsworthy events. The article about the cases that Yaniv brought; not Yaniv herself, and seems scrupulously neutral in its characterizations of her. Thus I don't see WP:BLP or WP:GNG as applying. The "International Attention" and "Commentary" sections serve to establish that this case is having a demonstrable impact on the discussion of Trans-related issues both inside and outside of Canada so any application of WP:EVENT or WP:NOT in my opinion is dubious. Further complicating the issue of WP:NOT is that Yaniv just made the news again—as the AFD was being discussed—after being arrested for brandishing a stun gun on a streamed debate (about her Human Rights Commission complaints) with YouTuber and conservative trans activist, Blaire White . Carl Henderson (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment It would be nice if people making vague appeals to WP:BLP (including the WP:BLP1E portion) and WP:NOT (including the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE portions) could explain specifically what statements apply to the article such that those should override the WP:GNG. Otherwise, such a statement is entirely subjective, could be applied to literally any article, and seems to mean nothing other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, the possibility of off-wiki canvassing cuts both ways. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This has been a persistent problem on the BCHRT article as well as the associated WP:BLP/N entry for the Yaniv section of the BCHRT article. It has been reviewed many times, I don't even know how many times, by admins for BLP violations and there are none. It survived an arduous slog on BLP/N. We've tread that ground over and over again but nobody can actually articulate exactly what the problem is. Summarily dropping a link to a policy is not sufficient, especially when a majority of editors favor Keep and disagree with that interpretation. This is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT wearing a BLP/NOTNEWS hat. Cosmic Sans (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• No, it is exactly the opposite - per policy. According to Misplaced Pages:Notability (in a nutshell), "Misplaced Pages articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Misplaced Pages". Therefore, everything WP:NOT does not belong to WP, no matter how notable (like the page/subject under discussion). WP:NOT overrides the WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is an example of the problem I referenced in my last comment. Is there a word for citing inapplicable policy without detail, as if that was enough? Maybe we should call it "Drive-by policy citation." Anyway, that's precisely what most of the Delete !votes did, and precisely what's going on now. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. This is not "routine news reporting" of a court case. BCHRT cases are rarely discussed in the news even within Canada, but this case has international reach. Over the last year, it's been covered by international publications like The Economist (UK), The Australian, The Glasgow Herald, and US publications as well. This is far from routine and as far as anyone can tell, only one other case in BCHRT history has ever generated even close to this much international attention. The case has been considered in legal policy debates in Australia and Scotland. It continues to generate new reliable sources by the day. This is far from your routine BCHRT coverage. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC) This, by the way, is why I invoked WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For example, on the BCHRT Talk page, I asked any user claiming a BLP problem to actually cite the portion of the BLP policy that's at issue. Nobody could. So I assume that BLP/NOTNEWS is being used as a more palatable argument than just IDONTLIKEIT. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You say this is something of a long-lasting significance. I do not know. After reading the WP page under AfD, there was a clear impression that the subject has no long-lasting importance and just a minor incident reported in press. Hence the votes to delete and closing. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

My point is that no cogent policy rationale has been set forth to support this deletion. The idea that NOTNEWS applies has been thoroughly debunked on this page and, it seems, nobody is even attempting to refute that. To make matters worse, the closing admin summarily deleted the article with only the most minimal of explanations despite the fact that the discussion favored Keep or at least no consensus. Now, if people want to claim that it was only a "minor incident", all I can do is point to the plethora of international discussion to prove that wrong. BCHRT cases do not get this kind of coverage. This case, though, was cited in legal policy discussions in Australia and Scotland. It was covered all around the world. Pretty far from a minor incident. But that's really beside the point, because I'm not seeing a clear policy rationale for deletion. It seems to be more or less that people don't like the article, probably because the subject is a drama magnet. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Crossroads1: I disagree that this event meets the requirements of WP:GNG, but even if it did, this is a necessary, but not sufficient justification for creating a standalone article. @Cosmic Sans: the justification has been explained, even if you disagree with it. To reiterate: WP:BLP, in essence, just says that BLP content must strictly adhere to core policies. The sourcing here is so weak and non-neutral that we can't write an article that conforms to those requirements. Nblund 14:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you about the courses (I don't consider The Economist, The Canadian Broadcasting Company, and The Australian to be "weak and non-neutral"), but the point is that the discussion favored Keep or No Consensus. Nevertheless, the closing admin decided to override that with a one-line summary devoid of any real rationale. I think that if an admin wants to override the result of the discussion, they should set forth a very good and detailed reason. Instead, we got a closing rationale that looks like a supervote and was, in fact, less detailed than some of the delete !votes. The closing admin has made it clear on their talk page that they will refuse to provide more rationale than was used in the close. Even if you want this article deleted, surely you can appreciate the problem with an admin swooping into a discussion and closing it the way they'd like to see it closed without providing a detailed rationale for that. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I usually stay out of DRV discussion of a close that I did. However, you need to read more carefully, because there's nothing on my talk page that says that I "refuse to provide more rationale". FWIW, Hut 8.5 gives a very good summary that I could have written myself (if less eloquently than they do). --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I would expect that there would be a more thorough close statement if an admin wants to close an AfD as delete even though a majority of editors wanted the article Kept. That's only compounded when you consider that the article was nominated for deletion within only 30 minutes after being created, so many of the Delete !votes only saw the article when it was in a stub state. Those votes should be given less weight, or perhaps not considered at all. (I'm willing to bet that many good articles on Misplaced Pages would catch !delete votes if they were judged only by their state of affairs 30 minutes in.) Specifically, I'd want a more detailed application of NOTNEWS. As explained in this discussion, none of the NOTNEWS criteria actually apply. There's no way this could be argued as "routine coverage" of a BCHRT case when it appears that this is only the second time in history that a case has received substantial coverage in outlets outside of Canada as well as factored into legal policy discussions in Australia and Scotland. Summarily closing the AfD against the wishes of the majority of the editors without a detailed and well-justified reason seems inappropriate, and should be grounds for this AfD to be reclosed as No Consensus. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse and close. Per application of IAR, I believe it would not be productive to have this BLP drama-magnet on the wiki, regardless of whether the coverage meets our criteria. While it might be possible to write an article that isn't WP:NOT, I think it would be much easier to postpone such efforts to after we export all the drama to the dramaboards. Restoring a non-violating revision under an appropriate level of protection would probably be acceptable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  Hear, hear!. !voted in AfD. This probably will merit an article down the road - at the moment it is below the belt in Signal-to-noise ratio, multiple BLP concerns, and drama over multiple Misplaced Pages boards. There's very little that passes the 10-year test at the moment.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn. At best this was a no consensus. The delete votes did not adequately refute the importance of the tribunal as a test case (as described by various international news sources). Polequant (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn - this should have been a "no consensus" at best. Kelly 13:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Question/Comment for DRV closer: How "not a vote" is this particular "not a vote"? If the numbers matter at all here, then I think it's appropriate to notify the other AFD participants at the very least. Nblund 14:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I would caution against this discussion becoming AfD Round 2. The question here is whether the AfD was properly closed and whether it should be overturned or endorsed. The opinions of those who were not involved in the underlying AfD are quite honestly more valuable than the people who were involved, you and I included. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I would caution against that as well, but considering the number of participants who are reiterating arguments from the AFD it looks like "selective AFD round 2 + some additional off-wiki canvassing". This DRV shows up all over reddit, but it hasn't been publicized at any of the relevant noticeboards where it might actually draw in a (non-selective) group of uninvolved editors. Nblund 14:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse the Keep comments in that AfD are largely some variation on "the subject passes the GNG", followed by links to sources and arguments about the reliability of particular sources. None of that addresses the central argument for deletion, which is that the subject's notability derives from short term media coverage, i.e. WP:BLP1e / WP:NOTNEWS. Those policies deal with cases where subjects get substantial coverage in reliable sources, sometimes a lot of coverage, but are nevertheless not suitable topics for articles. Pointing to recent news coverage does nothing to counter those arguments. A few Keep comments do discuss these arguments but not in much detail and mostly by bald assertions, so I don't think they are enough to make it a no consensus closure. Hut 8.5 14:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP1e applies to articles about people, not about events (or tribunal cases). I can see a BLP case for eliminating info irrelevant to the bikini-wax case and unnec. info about Yaniv - but I don't see how this can be dismissed as routine news. A number of women in a major liberal Western country, have been taken to a court-like tribunal (under threat of financial penalty) for refusing to even countenance handling male genitalia as part of a service they normally only offer in one-on-one, non-medical situations in their own or in the client's home, to biologically female people. They lack the skill, training or willingness to provide the service asked for. This situation has come about because of laws supposedly ensuring dignity and equality of treatment to both sexes and all gender identities. How can that not be extraordinary? How frequently are women threatened with fines for not wishing to handle someone's gentitalia? Yaniv is almost certainly going to 'lose' the tribunal case of course, and whatever ruling is given will serve as a 'interpretative qualifier' of the bare regulations - but, even so, the significance is established already. Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

But it can still be WP:BLP1E even if it isn't named after a person. You can summarize the event itself in 2 to 3 sentences. Even assuming that there will be a ruling is presumptive: three of Yaniv's complaints were simply withdrawn without a ruling. Nblund 18:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn -uninvolved, who meant to ivote but didn't have time - Just looking at the numbers should have resulted in a non-consensus which would have been a keep. There are some potential BLP considerations (naming Yaniv? Accusations of inapt online conversations with underage girls. Mentioning previous attempts at suing 'waxers'?) - but these are all solvable by sticking to necessary info about this case. IMO Yaniv will almost certainly 'lose' the case, but it has already acquired notoriety and will serve as a cautionary tale about well-intentioned, but carelessly framed legislation. Pincrete (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse per the endorsements given above. (I !voted to delete in the original AfD.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Overturn The keep side made far better policy-based arguments and they had a mountain of articles from newspapers of record backing the claim to notability. They also formed a majority of those who voted, which makes the outcome even more unusual.Patiodweller (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)