Vanessa Veracruz – Overturn to delete. Overwhelming consensus to overturn, even after downweighting a few arguments which are more of the re-arguing the merits of the article type than actually evaluating the close. Hobit does make a good point, in that these WP:PORNBIO discussions do seem to have attracted devoted followings on both sides, and that's not healthy for the project. I also feel compelled to mention that it's a little sad that as I look over all the currently active DRVs, a discussion about a porn actress is amongst the least offensive topics. – -- RoySmith(talk)14:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
"Most of the keep !votes were pro forma, either "per X" or similarly cursory. Of the two others, one had no grounding in notability policy or guidelines; the other made the often-rejected claim that a contested/technical pass of the PORNBIO SNG overrode the failure to satisfy GNG standards. The nominator and most of the delete !voters stressed the failure to meet GNG standards, an argument never substantively addressed by the article's proponents.
I concur and believe the close focused exclusively on the award, vs the complete lack of sources brought to the AfD, nor available. The article as it stands is a WP:DIRECTORY listing, which Wikipedia is not. The article is also completely free of secondary RS, which I believe is not appropriate for a BLP. Suggesting Overturn to delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to delete, Arguing that an award not notable enough to have its own article is grounds to meet pornbio is perverse and the closing admin could only have found keep by giving no policy based votes and assertions equal or greater weight then the clear evidenced fact that this is an inadequately sources BLP. SpartazHumbug!19:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. This presents almost exactly the same issues as the Karla Lane DRV, where the overwhelming consensus was to delete. A slightly edited version of my comment there: The delete !votes in this discussion were better argued, and better grounded in policy and guidelines. The keep !votes, to the extent they had any grouding, pretty uniformly rested on the argument that meeting any part of PORNBIO "automatically" guaranteed the subject an article. This contradicts express language in WP:BIO, which PORNBIO is part of, saying that technically passing an SNG "does not guarantee that a subject should be included". !Votes which contradict the governing guideline should be discounted, especially when they are in the clear minority. Finally, the keep !~voters made only trivial attempts, at best, to rebut the argument that, as a BLP without adequate reliable sourcing, the article should be deleted. BLP policy overrides a marginal pass of a dubious SNG. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 26 (Jayden James), which presents essentially the same issues, where the community strongly endorsed deletion, as well as the similar, quite recent, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Rose. Clear failure to meet GNG and BLP sourcing requirements overrides a heavily disputed claim to technically pass an SNG, especially one the community shows little confidence in. While the close here was made in good faith, the closing admin had been essentially inactive from 2011 until recently, and may not have appreciated the strengthened consensus rearding BLP sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete - As much as I would love to say keep .....There wasn't any consensus to Keep the article, The entire AFD focused on a non notable award and there was barely any sources presented, –Davey2010Talk00:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete as there has been noticeable consensus at AfD as it is that the one award listed is not actually convincing for what we list as a substantial award and otherwise convincing article. SwisterTwistertalk03:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Reasonable close. I think delete is also a reasonable reading, but that NC better reflects the discussion. I can see the closer concluding that there was no consensus if this award, unlike the one for Ms. Lane, was enough to meet our SNG. I continue to worry that these AfDs, DRVs and RfCs keep attracting the same people who always line up in the same way... Hobit (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as closer 1) I am not "essentially inactive", how rude. 2) I similarly note Hobit's concerns around DRV. 3) I was trying to help by closing a complex and protracted discussion as best I could, but have no objection to my closure being overturned. fish&karate11:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why it matters so much to you, but while I read a lot more than I edit these days, I keep up with things. And you could frame it as 48 edits in the last 3 months. BOOM. Super active. fish&karate12:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially is promotion. No independent reliable sourcing. No secondary sources. No content. Won a non-notable award is clearly not an indicator of there existing enough material to write a biography. "Keep" was not the consensus of the discussion. "No consensus" may be defensible, but as an under-sourced BLP, the default is to delete. If the award were notable, the content could have been merged to an article on the award and its winners. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SNGs cannot trump GNG. The idea behind our notability guidelines is WP:WHYN - there should be enough reliable sources independent of the subject so that we can write an NPOV article. Over here there simply isn't. Simply passing PORNBIO doesn't guarantee an article, that too a BLP. To be honest this was a bit close, but I personally think the delete !votes were slightly better argued here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Endorse as I will confirm what I said at my comments and there's simply nothing to suggest otherwise. Draft is actually no different than what the article was and therefore it's not convincing. SwisterTwistertalk03:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with no recreation at this time. Some idiot yelling a crude catchphrase on live TV isn't a reliable source, and doesn't address in any serious way the concerns raised in the previous discussion. Lankiveil(speak to me)07:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse - Personally I'd prefer to see it deleted however consensus was to redirect, The filer deserves a trout just for wanting this vile article to exist!. –Davey2010Talk00:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me I'm not joking in the slightest, I absolutely couldn't careless about the sources - It doesn't belong on this planet nevermind the project, Shove it on Wikia or better still withdraw this DRV and move on. –Davey2010Talk14:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop baiting and go and do something productive, Or better still just !vote, I simply disagree with the articles existence that's it, Yep WP:IDONTLIKEIT but anyway that's my opinion, Ofcourse if you wanna !vote then !vote. –Davey2010Talk20:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
endorse and restore deletion discussion was closed correctly, but the three new sources, by themselves, are nearly at or over the WP:N bar by themselves. Combined with the other new sources and all the old ones, clearly over the bar. Hobit (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion with no recreation and remove redirect (but beyond scope). Not notable enough for a search hit out of the list of other memes. Doesn't deserve special attention for sophomoric sexual reference. --DHeyward (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing the sources don't meet our inclusion guidelines? Ignoring the sexual reference part, it seems well above our standard inclusion guidelines from a RS viewpoint. It's fine if you disagree, but could you address the sources or provide some policy/guideline based reason for deletion? Hobit (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was correctly determined and the article was deleted properly for the policy reasons discussed in the deletion discussion. It doesn't meet our guidelines for inclusion and that determination of consensus was properly made. This isn't "deletion do-over" and the only arguments being made to recreate don't indicate why the original deletion was procedurally improper. The arguments to delete were stronger in the original deletion discussion and the arguments to endorse it are stronger in the review. --DHeyward (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You ignore the new sources, and ignore the reason for this DRV is to review those new sources in light of WP:N. Your comments are willful blindness and an attack on the foundation of wikipedia. You should be ashamed. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some more coverage of the article topic, from after the previous AFD: The Toronto Star published a list of their Most-read stories of 2015[1], and #1 was the coverage of the resulting events after an FHRITP incident: Hydro One firing employee involved in vulgar incident at Toronto FC game[2][3] -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation with the new sources described above, which would make a much stronger case for meeting WP:N. The "vileness" or sophomoric nature of the subject matter has no bearing on policy. Pinguinn🐧16:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These sources, just like all the sources, while they retell the prank, do not provide secondary source coverage of the expletive itself, no direct secondary source coverage. It is all mere repetition, perpetuation of the prank. These sources do not demonstrate notability of the topic, the topic being the expletive. Therefore, there should not be an article covering the expletive. It may be covered within another article, but not in a stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An extraordinary crass occurrence, repeated by sensationalist tabloid journalism, does not make suitable content for an encyclopedia. There were no reputable secondary sources. It could be fit into a list of expletive words and phrases, but it is not a topic worthy of an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, 1-4 are tabloid journalism, just repeating repetition of the phrase. 5 doesn't seem relevant. Your draft is not covering the topic with secondary source content, it is just repeating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the 3rd source is the CBC, which isn't known for tabloid journalism. The 4th is an award winning journal from a journalism school. The 5th is an academic paper that spends a paragraph on the topic and cites around a half-dozen reliable sources with the hashtag in the title of the source. That's more coverage, in better places, than 90% of all our articles. Hobit (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What they are known for can be different to specific examples. And is, in this case, with respect to the topic of the expletive. There is no serious coverage, beyond repetition, of the expletive. Where the coverage achieves quality, it is not covering this specific expletive but broader topics. Redirect was the right call. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you've read the article in question, but I'm really unclear how you could come away with that opinion. The journal addresses the question of how reporters should deal with this. Which makes sense as it's a journal for journalists. The CBC talks about the impact on the journalists and how people have been fired from work and/or disciplined at school for their behavior. Per our sources, this is a case of sexual harassment. We aren't doing the world any good by leaving coverage of this to the Urban Dictionary which is more likely to result in it being covered as a harmless joke rather than as sexual harassment. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hobit. Always interesting when we disagree. It is about "what is the context". "how reporters should deal with this" indeed. And by "this" I think it means "public harassment of women", or more specifically "public-workplace harassment of female journalists". The topic is not the specific acts of harassment, let along this particular act of harassment. The repetition of the act of harassment, by repeating it in the story, or by embedding a video, is repetition of a primary source, which does not speak to notability, and is tabloid journalism sensationalism. This particular expletive phrase act of harassment should be covered, but in context. The expletive does not belong in the title of an article, or as the focus of any article. The topic of the expletive in obscene, continued harassment, and with this article Wikipedia was perpetuating it. And on a hard reading of WP:N, the topic of the expletive fails. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While we do disagree from time-to-time, this is the only case I can recall where I just can't get my mind around it.
As far as the expletive goes, WP:NOTCENSORED is really the only response--it just doesn't (and IMO shouldn't) matter.
As far as the notability argument goes, WP:N looks at sources. We have the Toronto Star, the CBC, the Washington Post [6], and many other inarguable reliable sources covering the topic. These sources are in-depth coverage talking about more than just the events, but also talking about the fallout of these events (the Washington Post one I linked to discusses a person losing a 6-figure job over it). This one is, IMO, so far over the WP:N bar I just can't understand any argument to the contrary.
And finally, from a societal viewpoint, I think we'd be doing a lot more good than harm by having the article. It clearly focuses on the sexual harassment nature of the enterprise. And I think the people likely to do this are the type that just think "it's a joke". Pointing out that people are hurt by this (both the reporter and hurting themselves) might reduce the rate of this stuff. With an article on it, a search for it or the abbreviation would show up on top of a Google search.
Well, them's my argument: NOTCENSORED, WP:N, and general societal good. I feel like those are pretty strong arguments. In any case, thanks for taking the time to discuss. Hobit (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The expletive" is a phase I use to emphasis how narrow the topic as titled and deleted/redirect was. NOTCENSORED is fine.
My main line is that the topic fails WP:N. The topic, as narrowly defined, is not the subject of secondary source coverage. Secondary source coverage is the most important test of notability. Topics that are covered only briefly in secondary sources do not meet the test. You are correct in noting that several sources mentioned are quality, reliably secondary sources, but for the narrowly defined topic the coverage is too brief. The sources are covering a board topic that is not the topic deleted. See Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources. On careful analysis, all coverage of the expletive is primary. Mere repetition of primary source material doesn't transform it into secondary. There is now qualitative discussion of the expletive. No one is saying that it is clever, succinct, etc.
The societal viewpoint is subservient to notability. On many topics, plant species, asteroids, historical figures, geographical features, we don't press the WP:N line. On societal sensitive issues, BLPs, offensive topics like this, it is more important to do things right. Allowing the encyclopedic test of WP:N to be influenced by sensational excitement is a societal problem, so it must be taken seriously, and that means a more thorough analysis per WP:N.
The solution to this is not to have no coverage, but to not have the coverage in a stand alone article. The coverage belongs elsewhere. The closer got it exactly right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm following that. So would a title which is broader, like FHRITP phenomenon or something similar be something you'd agree we _do_ have sufficient coverage of? To me, that and the currently proposed title are more-or-less the same, but I can see an objection to coverage of the phrase (due to narrow coverage) but the whole phenomenon (including the harassment and fallout) is what these news stories are about. To me, it's a distinction without much of a difference, but I can see how others might find a significant difference. In any case, thanks and good night. Hobit (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph in 1Wiki8's 5th source ("As an example, consider the social media activity that arose following a vulgarity yelled...") would be supportive of content for an article Public harassment of women, the specific expletive is an item of passing mention, mentioned as a trigger of a social activity being used as an example. That is not direct coverage. It is no justification for coverage of the original hoax or for pointing to the many copycat occurrences. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it is not "1Wiki8's" sources, nor is it my draft, as I vehemently refute any attempt to claim WP:OWNership over any draft or an article. All editors in good standing may edit the draft or resulting article, and at least one other already has. Thanks. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of sexual harassment isn't itself sexual harassment. In fact, done well, it will hopefully reduce sexual harassment. And I've no idea what part of NOT you feel applies here. The closest I see is "not censored" which would push toward coverage rather than against. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the above articles are titled neutrally, and not I groped her crotch etc. Even the nom appears to agree that the title of the deleted article is inappropriate, as they are suggesting that (if the article is revived) it should be called FHRITP phenomenon to "more accurately reflect the article topic". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that this _is_ the name of the thing and thus neutral, but I'd certainly prefer to have the article under the name you propose than not have the article at all. If that's the compromise needed, I'd accept it (with some sadness directed at WP:NOTCENSORED). Hobit (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've got a different definition of neutral. It's offensive for certain, but I'm not sure how calling something by the name it is known as isn't neutral. In any case, I think your proposed name change is acceptable. Hobit (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion with no recreation Viral phenomena requires significant coverage about the phenomena as a whole (instead of examples of the phenomena) and these diverse sources need to demonstrate WP:LASTING effects and WP:PERSISTENT coverage. This one is close but just not yet. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
