Jonathan Yaniv – Practically endorse, as the consensus here is clearly that there is no good evidence of notability, as many of the sources are considered to be unreliable; any restoration would (per SmokeyJoe) require sufficient reliable sources to be presented (e.g in WP:AFC). No consensus on turning this into a redirect, the key counterargument is that there is no evidence that a redirect would be useful here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Yaniv was not notable in 2015. However she got a notablity during gender transition and transgender activism. Her new name is Jessica Yaniv. Sharouser (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: first of all you will need to supply some sort of evidence that the subject meets WP:BIO, preferably with a draft article which could be moved to mainspace. Secondly there is essentially no usable content in the deleted version, it was less than 100 words long and half of that is extremely promotional. Needless to say it does not say anything about gender transition or transgender issues. Hut 8.518:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: This conversation at WP:BLPN provides some useful context. I think she's pretty clearly WP:BLP1E, and the sourcing on her is very weak beyond this case. Her name was subject to a court-ordered publication ban until a couple of weeks ago, but she happens to be the outrage-of-the-month for the grossest corners of Reddit and Twitter. Also, I don't think her previous name is something that appears in reliable sources. Nblundtalk23:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not typically have biographies on people notable for a single event (WP:BLP1E) unless that event is extremely high profile. Merely getting in the news for a single controversy doesn't mean that somebody gets a Wikipedia article. The source you linked to is an opinion piece and therefore not reliable for anything other than the opinion of the person who wrote it. Hut 8.510:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean she gets a Wikipedia article, but this is a plausible search term now and likely to attract other persons who're interested in the topic. I'd suggest covering this matter (in a few, very brief, totally neutral words, with low prominence that's proportionate to its low importance) under Transgender rights in Canada. You could then legitimately redirect both Jonathan Yaniv and Jessica Yaniv to that article.—S MarshallT/C16:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was some disagreement at BLP/N regarding whether or not her case was worth mentioning at all, but I don't think any editor thought that her full name should be publicized at this time - so this seems like it would be sort of an end-run around that view. Moreover: I'm extremely skeptical that the name Jonathan would be a search term since it's not really something that is mentioned in mainstream reporting on this case. I understand that we sometimes use prior names when someone was well known under that name, but that wouldn't be the case here, and so that seems like it would be a unjustified violation of privacy. Nblundtalk17:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She has more sources than ever before. I created the page before she started selling her bath water. After she started selling her bath water, all the mainline media, USA Today, CNN exc started covering her. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not really sure what to do with this one - I don't think there's harm in allowing a draft to be written, but I also don't think it'll be accepted. SportingFlyerT·C
Existence of coverage is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. This fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E. Stuff like this is sensationalistic; somebody does it precisely because it's wild and flamboyant and will attract media attention. That doesn't make it worthy of an encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith(talk)16:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. The deleted article fails to impress but the media coverage now has cultural commentary and analysis of some generic applicability which could, just barely, be used by a capable editor to create something we wouldn't be embarrassed to call an encyclopedia article. But this is tricky stuff. Haukur (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of relieved by the way this discussion is going but this might be a good place to mention that our ahegao article gets an average of 3000 hits per day lately and really could use some work. Or some deletion, if we don't have the sources for a decent article. Haukur (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the clear decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belle Delphine, and keep deleted with prejudice for at least 6 months. The new sources, eg "Is Belle Delphine, a.k.a. Bathwater Gamer Girl, the Greatest Troll On the Internet?" are joke articles, not reputable sources, even if the publishers are usually accepted as reputable and reliable sources. 6 months is the standard time to leave a clear decision before allowing repeat challenges, such as what an AfC submission would amount to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Other media may co-operate in a job of self-promotion because they think the person amusing, and providing readable human interest stories is a perfect reasonable goal of even a very good newspaper. But we're an encyclopedia. There was a time, 15 years ago, where there was little good coverage of many aspects of popular culture unless we did it here, and this could justify presenting information on matters of no real interest. This has changed, and nothing of this nature will be lost to the world because we don't include it. DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
