Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Gibson: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:44, 19 September 2023

Susanna Gibson

[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)

WP:BLP1E; unelected politician whose notability stems from having consensual sex with her husband. The article also has major NPOV issues by presenting aforementioned consensual sex with a spouse as scandalous. Sceptre (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Virginia. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It violates WP:NPOV because she's a Democrat. Don't you know about the two standard rules on Wikipedia? There is one standard for Republicans and Independents. And there is no standard or rules that can apply to Democrats. That is, pedophiles, child rapists, murders, and their corrupt politicians who serve them. ICarriere (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I wrote the original article draft that another editor published. I’m not sure how this violates WP:NPOV. I created the page to try and give the subject a fair portrayal given the sensitivity of her controversy.

I quoted both Gibson and her opponent. As well as her lawyers’ statement about a possible legal violation against Gibson. I also described how reactions were varied.

I have tried to be much more discreet than the sources themselves.

Reliable sources are characterizing the situation as a scandal.

If there is any confusion, the scandal is not a politician having consensual sex but streaming it online for tips.

It’s definitely a valid opinion that it should not be seen as a scandal, but I am only characterizing it as the sources have and by following a reasonable definition of the term.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scandal

For one who objects to the definition’s implication of wrongdoing. Definition 3 would still apply. “malicious or defamatory gossip”

I am thinking of expanding the controversy section to include more reactions because the situation could indicate a turning point in how the public views the sex lives of politicians.

In terms of WP:BLP1E, I think this could fall under it. But I will leave it to more experienced editors to decide. YordleSquire (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify: I think this probably fails WP:BLP1E. Also, she fails WP:NPOL, so unless there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage or she is eventually elected this article probably shouldn't be in the main space. However, since @YordleSquire appears to have created the article in good faith I'd support moving it back to draft space and letting them work on it (if there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage to add or if she is later elected). But it probably shouldn't stay in main space, they aren't notable for anything other than this scandal right now. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am amenable to putting it back in draft. I am a new editor and submitted the article a few days ago. It was declined under WP:NPOL and I asked Treehouse for guidance and learned about some relevant policies.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#13:36, 13 September 2023 review of submission by YordleSquire

I stated there that I would not resubmit unless there were further developments. As mentioned, another editor moved the article to main space. It was exciting getting my first article to main, but I will defer to consensus.

In any case, I would appreciate being able to have it back as a Draft if it is not appropriate for main space in case she wins her race. YordleSquire (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia defending censorship. Priceless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.224.21.211 (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added a sentence to the article summary to possibly help with notability.

The Politco opinion piece which defends Gibson describes it as the first political sex video to spread online.

To quote them directly:

“But never before Gibson’s case has a politician’s hot video action spread on the internet.”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/12/candidate-livestreamed-sex-acts-00115395 YordleSquire (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unelected candidates get articles only if either (a) they were already notable enough for some other reason to get an article on those other grounds anyway, or (b) they can show credible evidence that their candidacy is somehow much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance.
Imagine that she loses the election and then never does another notable thing as long as she lives, such that "once ran for election and lost" remains her peak notability claim for the rest of her life — under those circumstances, do people still care about any of this into the 2030s and 2040s and 2050s? We would need to see some evidence of that being true, but this isn't showing that at all — as of right now, this all just makes her a WP:BLP1E rather than a topic of enduring importance. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected politicians are not notable unless they've done other things as well, which is not the case here, and there are also NPOV issues. SportingFlyer T·C 08:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on what you specifically see as NPOV issues? In the case that she does win her office. I will try and fix them.

All of the reliable sources regarding Gibson focus on her controversy. I have not characterized it any differently than how they have. YordleSquire (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To help address any NPOV concerns I have changed the sentence

“Gibson received widespread national attention after a sex scandal revealed that she had streamed pornographic acts online.”

to

“Gibson received widespread national attention after videos surfaced of her streaming consensual sex with her husband which had been recorded without her knowledge.” YordleSquire (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If she loses this is still a flagrant WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 12:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not move the draft to mainspace. Another editor did. I’m more than happy to have it back in Draft. I’m relatively new here so not sure if that’s something I can do myself. YordleSquire (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator. Only elected officeholders are presumed notable per WP:NPOL. Apart from her sex tape or whatever it is which has given her much publications, no other prove of notability. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Virginia House of Delegates election#District 57. Agree that she is not notable yet, but the general practice here is to redirect to the article on the election. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to 2023 Virginia House of Delegates election. Coverage remains WP:SUSTAINED since the "scandal" broke and clearly will continue at least through the election in November. Material here shouldn't simply be deleted as it is now a key storyline in the 2023 Virginia House of Delegates election and could affect its outcome. Per left-leaning Slate, "Susanna Gibson's unexpected scandal could lose Virginia Democrats the state Legislature" [1] Loksmythe (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 [[WP:BLP1E]]; unelected politician whose notability stems from having consensual sex with her husband. The article also has major NPOV issues by presenting aforementioned consensual sex with a spouse as scandalous. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 18:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 *<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting|deletion sorting]] lists for the following topics: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians|Politicians]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women|Women]],  and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Virginia|Virginia]]. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 18:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)</small>
+*:It violates WP:NPOV because she's a Democrat. Don't you know about the two standard rules on Wikipedia? There is one standard for Republicans and Independents. And there is no standard or rules that can apply to Democrats. That is, pedophiles, child rapists, murders, and their corrupt politicians who serve them. [[User:ICarriere|ICarriere]] ([[User talk:ICarriere|talk]]) 20:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 :Hello I wrote the original article draft that another editor published. I’m not sure how this violates [[WP:NPOV]]. I created the page to try and give the subject a fair portrayal given the sensitivity of her controversy.