Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:40, 3 August 2019

Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to meet WP:SIGCOV/WP:EVENT. The overwhelming majority of coverage comes from opinion pieces, many of which acknowledge that the mainstream press hasn't really picked up this story. The story involves a WP:BLP1E individual, and the general consensus in discussions elsewhere has been that, at best, this story might warrant some minimal coverage at the page for the BC Human Rights Tribunal. Since the Tribunal has not yet handed down a decision, it seems implausible to think that we're going to be able to say anything about the "lasting import" of this case at the moment.Nblund^talk 15:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 15:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 15:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 15:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've heard of this story from national news coverage from the other side of the Atlantic. [1] [2] Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some impressive reliable sources appear. This may or may not become a case which established some legal precedent, but not yet as far as I can tell. Yes some newspapers have reprinted the chaff of hearsay and some rather ill advised quotes from the subject, but based on my observations of social media in the last week, any notoriety for the case is the Twitter enthusiasm for salacious reposts, click-bait, abusive imagery and the excuse to say something offensive or nasty about "balls" and trans women at the same time. This could as quickly evaporate next week and does not cross the threshold of GNG. The suggestion of inclusion in a larger article makes more sense to me, once the legal issues are better understood, if any. Based on the reported comment from the tribunal, that means waiting until November 2019 at the earliest, at which point this may come to naught. --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage clearly includes Europe, North America, and Australia. Clearly meets GNG. It is false to argue that "the mainstream press hasn't really picked up this", when solid WP:RS such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation clearly cover the case.^[1] The nom ought to be withdrawn with prejudice on that false assertion alone. XavierItzm (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC covers a lot of events that do not have Wikipedia articles, or do you honestly believe Wikipedia must have an article for the event "At an airport in Rome recently, 336 Air Transat passengers sat in a plane on the tarmac for six hours"? This is not actually a legal case as far as I can tell. The tribunal has given no opinions and will not for a couple more months. Even when the tribunal gives a statement it may be to give no statement at all. That's not a good basis for Wikipedia notability for an event. --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
XavierItzm: not trying to be a jerk here, but do you see that blue link in my post? It leads you to an op-ed where the writer states "While the Yaniv case has been going on for a while now, you may not have heard much about it, as it has largely been covered by the rightwing press." Please read more carefully before throwing out accusations like that. Nblund^talk 16:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it has been covered by the right-wing press, and mostly as a vehicle for a whole pile of fabrication and transphobia, does not mean that it hasn't been covered by a less biased press too.

If you have a case that "WP should not be covering this" then make it, because GNG is unlikely to be a reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should take that up with the Guardian. What it means is that there is a dearth of high quality sourcing and a wealth of crap. Where is that mainstream reliable coverage that adds up to more than a subsection within another article? We have a CBC article and a Globe and Mail article - but we have no decision, virtually none of the WP:INDEPTH coverage that could demonstrate a a lasting impact, and a bunch of op-eds that come pretty much exclusively from the same perspective. We're at stub-length and we're pretty much out of stuff to say. Nblund^talk 16:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take up what with the Guardian?

And are you now advocating that stub articles be deleted, simply for being stubs? Especially not on a story that is still ongoing. The gay cake case took an awfully long time to come to a conclusion and even if this (as seeems likely) ends up merged as a section somewhere, that's still some distance from deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that stub articles that can't be improved should be deleted or merged. We don't judge noteability based on expectations about the future, we judge them based on their current status. If you were to create a "lasting impact" subsection in this entry, what would you write? Nblund^talk 17:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So if this article was to be merged somewhere, because this one issue was likely to be too insignificant, in which direction would you seek to merge it? Transgender issues in Canada? Transgender issues generally, vis a vis the trans / TERF conflict? Or to Jessica Yaniv? However that article would be heavily negative and the term "sexual predator" would certainly be on the table, as that's how they are seen and described by many commentators [3] (and yes, it's a chilly day in Hell today, as I'm agreeing with Miranda Yardley over anything).

That said, I think that long-term this is going to produce case law which is known to every Canadian law student within a few years, whichever way it goes. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The case was previously mentioned on the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal entry. It was removed after a WP:BLPN discussion for lack of sourcing - but that would at least be a plausible place to put the information. If this becomes the subject of serious legal analysis then I'll be totally on board with adding that or having an article on it. We're not there yet. Nblund^talk 17:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed from there 3RR, against reversions by multiple editors, claiming PRIVACY concerns, despite international newspaper coverage and considerable self publication by the complainant. So hardly a convincing removal and certainly no influence on this article, per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of news coverage and opinion pieces from highly reliable sources around the globe. Not sure why this was nominated for deletion other than that Nblund and Fae seem to have very strong personal feelings on transgender-related topics. I've stumbled upon much less notable topics on Wikipedia. Rhino (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shame that this AfD could not have remained free of unhelpful personal allegations about contributors. --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please note user Fæ has three times in less than 24 hours deleted the same material, in violation of the 3RV rule. Clearly the article is being tampered with. A warning has been left on user Fæ's TP. XavierItzm (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- XavierItzm, Fae invoked the BLP, and rightly so, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And when Fae's response to other editors is "looks a lot like vandalism", they're a whisker away from ANI. I too am concerned about the large section blankings go on, during an AfD. That's not about BLP when this is information widely out on public media channels (and much of it was self-tweeted), but it is distruptive to the AfD process. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is clearly enough coverage, but the article is a bit undercooked and the case is apparently still being resolved in tribunal. Still, on the notability merits, it probably stands for now. Raymie (t • c) 17:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the threshold for notability: still just a single news event. That this got picked up a couple of papers and a couple of right-wing outlets doesn't raise it above NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that it isn't (and basic research will show this) is a single new event. There are a number of issues to Jessica Yaniv as a "campaigner for trans rights" [sic], some profoundly negative. Constructing an article to WP:BLP standards around them would be another matter, but this is far from a single "15 minutes of fame" incident. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm too basic, but the sources are all from the same time, so one can hardly argue that the person already had a reputation as an activist or whatever, in any kind of provable way. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing goes back a couple of years, especially re Cimorelli. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENT. Coverage lacks depth and duration. An article on tribunal case without a released decision is going to inherently tend toward sensationalism. Revisit once the decision is released and we actually have something to write an encyclopedia article about.--Trystan (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I agree with Trystan that this doesn't meet WP:EVENT, and it also raises WP:BLP1E concerns. It reads like a tabloid story that has received some sensationalist coverage. If the story does demonstrate lasting coverage, then I would start with a section in British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal first.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those writing this story off as "too small" or "not covered by sources" would do well to look at the whole history of it, without the continuing series of large section blankings going on. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
History Merge and Delete back to the Tribunal entry, after cutting down the excessive details on this. From the prior BLP:N discussion, this seems like something that can be safely covered as a notable case in the Tribunal's page without going into any significant detail. I would assume that if this gets more notable, it will be due to a court case at the highest levels in Canada - eg comparable to how Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission or R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission where the incident is significant to the court ruling, but itself not highlighted. As I believe there are contributions from the Tribunal page to here, and new contributions here, this can't be deleted without a proper history merge. --Masem (t) 19:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

support I wouldn't be overjoyed at that, as I'd see it as failing WP's vital role in ongoing investigative jourmalism. However as WP doesn't have such a role, and BLP significantly (and rightly) limits how far WP can go in that direction, it's probably the best option available to WP at this time. However better RS available in the future and I'd like to see this (and the rest) split out to Jessica Yaniv. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there was at least a Toronto Sun story about it, and checking gnews now, at least a CBC and a UK Guardian article on it, all well above the other "tabloid-ish" sources that appear too. It is a fair story to be covered on both the Tribunal's page and Yaniv's page in minimal detail, at least until the Tribunal makes a ruling and determining if legal action is needed. But absolutely not a standalone article. --Masem (t) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Yaniv page. There is general agreement that they do not meet PERSON when separated from the tribunal case and the increasing internet footprint of anti-trans rights related lobbying and mostly abusive click-bait that Google returns about Yaniv. --Fæ (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There is general agreement " {{citation needed}} Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the WP:EVENT and WP:BLP1E concerns raised by various !voters above. XOR'easter (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Transgender woman testifies at human rights tribunal after being refused Brazilian wax". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 26 July 2019. Retrieved 3 August 2019.

[1] "Transgender woman testifies at human rights tribunal after being refused Brazilian wax". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 26 July 2019. Retrieved 3 August 2019.

[1]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 :* One thing that it isn't (and basic research will show this) is a single new event. There are a number of issues to Jessica Yaniv as a "campaigner for trans rights"{{sic}}, some profoundly negative. Constructing an article to WP:BLP standards around them would be another matter, but this is far from a single "15 minutes of fame" incident. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 17:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 ::*Maybe I'm too basic, but the sources are all from the same time, so one can hardly argue that the person already had a reputation as an activist or whatever, in any kind of provable way. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 19:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
+:::* Sourcing goes back a couple of years, especially re [[Cimorelli]]. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 19:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per [[WP:EVENT]]. Coverage lacks depth and duration. An article on tribunal case without a released decision is going to inherently tend toward sensationalism. Revisit once the decision is released and we actually have something to write an encyclopedia article about.--[[User:Trystan|Trystan]] ([[User talk:Trystan|talk]]) 17:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' for now.  I agree with Trystan that this doesn't meet [[WP:EVENT]], and it also raises [[WP:BLP1E]] concerns.  It reads like a tabloid story that has received some sensationalist coverage.  If the story does demonstrate lasting coverage, then I would start with a section in [[British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal]] first.--<span style="font-family: Constantia">[[User:Mojo Hand|Mojo Hand]] ''([[User talk:Mojo Hand|talk]])''</span> 17:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)