Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nblund (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 26 September 2020 (→‎Jessica Yaniv: replying to catcafe and morbidthoughts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jessica Yaniv

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

AfDs for this article:
Jessica Yaniv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP was spun out of British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal#Yaniv_v._Various_Waxing_Salons, which to me looks to be reasonable coverage of the case; however I would argue that an entire separate biography is WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP1E.

80% of the article is about that case, and the rest is a few minor incidents in her life, all from a single very local paper.

The article on the waxing dispute was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case per NOTNEWS and BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The prior AFD was, by it's title, was exclusively about the tribunal case, so really just an expansion of what's in British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal#Yaniv_v._Various_Waxing_Salons. Given the case was ongoing, and only so much to say (per WP:CRYSTAL), a separate article made no sense (at the time). The local coverage helps us discuss this person as an activist, and not just reference them as a single-note individual (it gives context to the person, we can't in the tribinual article). I think the arrest has garnered significant coverage [1][2][3]. So, it's worthy of inclusion, but will be out of scope in British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal. Also, I think there's clear room for growth in this article, in terms of the political/cultural dimension of it. There is this editorial in the Guardian about the nature/motive of most coverage of the case, why/how it's covered, combined with questions of motive of Yaniv, that can be used (it would of course, need to be attributed to the author appropriately, as opinion) that gives a much better understanding of what is actually going on, that can be explained in the Tribunal article. There is room for growth, but I've been intentionally slow in expansion, as I am trying to exclude the 95%+ of internet "news" that's blatantly bias and unreliable on this topic. -22:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thivierr (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That will be hard now (with edits after your comment), since this article is much larger than the non-Yaniv portion of British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. There's multiple things covered in reliable sources, that wouldn't fit in the the Tribunal article: her education, career/business, viral media campaign in 2008 (covered a decade before Tribunal case), arrest, local activism on varies issues, and allegations of harassment. The "Impact and reactions" sub-section could go in the Tribunal article, but it would make the Yaniv section somewhat over-weighted, since there isn't similar coverage in other cases. -Rob (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we couldn't support an article about the incident, then we certainly can't support a WP:BLP1E of the person involved in it — the bar for that is markedly higher than the bar for an incident article. If the content in the Human Rights Tribunal article is starting to overwhelm it, that's less of a reason to give Jessica Yaniv a special personal exemption from BLP1E rules and more of a reason to trim that section as WP:UNDUE weight. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would have deleted the incident article and any bio, at the time of the incident AFD in August 2019. Time has moved on. The case has a resolution. it's no longer a CRYSTAL situation. There's now coverage of the significant impact the case has had on the community, and how it's seen. There's much more non-fringe coverage. There's also coverage beyond the case. There's general bio material, now. You seem to only be addressing what was, not what is. -Rob (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is like deleting potentional future movie project by unknown producer and using that "precedent" to later delete actual movie released with notable social impact. Please, can somebody explain the relevance of citing the prior AFD about a WP:CRYSTAL speculation of what might happen, and what might it mean, to an article with actual coverage of what actually happened, and what impact there is. When the country's leading newspaper runs an article titled "Jessica Yaniv fallout: Vancouver transgender activists says high-profile case has been 'massively negative' for community"[4], I think that conveys a degree of independent notability (to at least have a spin-off article). The multiple independent reliable sources providing substantial details about Yaniv, beyond the Tribunal case, justifies a bio article. In any event, if the !vote is to remove this article, I request we keep the content in history, place a redirect, and if worried of it being undone, protect it; as there's ample improvement over the Tribinal aritcle coverage, including better sourcing, that doesn't cite primary source of the case itself. It will take time to work an appropriate amount, back into the main article. -Rob (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What changed here exactly? The Guardian article Thivierr references above in support of Yaniv's significance was available back in 2019 when we decided that Yaniv's case didn't even warrant coverage, so why would it justify a full-fledged BLP a year later? Although there are few more recent articles cited in the entry, the fact that they consistently identify Yaniv as "the woman who filed that waxing case" is a strong indication of a WP:BLP1E who no one would recognize for anything beyond that incident. Where's the WP:SIGCOV that we could cite to talk about her legacy and significance? What can be said about her impact on society beyond her being a punching bag for tabloids? Nblund talk 03:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"What changed here exactly?" The case was decided! You didn't know? Rather than list everything changed here, I'll let you read the full article. I would have added more to the article, but I've figured out (belatedly) that the longer the article, the fewer people actually read it before !voting. In your AFD nomination, you stated "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." You were absolutely right. I would have deleted the article for that very reason. You mentioned the Guardian piece that's older, but there's the TorStar quote I gave above (post judgement). I've cited multiple independent reliable sources explaining the impact of the case. You complained in your AFD that "The overwhelming majority of coverage comes from opinion pieces". However, most citations in this article, are to factual articles, in reliable sources. The opinion pieces that I cited are by notable opinion makers in reliable publications, and are definitely not the garbage that is 95%+ of internet results. -Rob (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, there was never any doubt that the case would be decided, but the argument was that the case would have significant legal impact. I don't see evidence for that, and it wouldn't justify a standalone BLP anyway. As for reliable coverage of Yaniv since this event: it appears to be limited to either local coverage (Aldergrove Star) or more coverage from the same Post Media tabloids (National Post, Spruce Grove Examiner, etc.), that have been humping this story from the start (Edit there was a story on the weapons charge from Global News, which is not Post media, so that's 1.). Why don't more prominent outlets like the CBC appear to care about the arrest of this significant national figure? Nblund talk 17:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, you didn't know the case was decided, but after being told, now think that's a trivial fact? Of course the case didn't have a significant *legal* impact. It didn't change law. You clearly still haven't read the full article and sources, or you would understand what I was referring to. Also, Postmedia does own tabloids, like Toronto Sun. National Post isn't a tabloid, despite common ownership. Notice I avoided use of former Sun Media outlets. -Rob (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure where you're getting the impression that I didn't know the outcome of the case: I worked on the description of the wording. I brought up legal precedent because, in the prior deletion discussion, several keep !voters argued that the case would produce important case law. It hasn't done that, as far as I can tell.
As for Post Media: other sources have remarked on the general trend toward more centralized and more openly partisan coverage across Post Media properties. That alone doesn't make them unusable, but the discrepancy between their interest in Yaniv compared to other outlets is pretty glaring. A bonafide significant figure would probably generate more coverage in other outlets. Nblund talk 23:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How many are from independent, high quality, reliable sources? Google News searches turn up results from a number of outlets (like The Post Millennial) that are not considered reliable. Nblund talk 23:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Forbes, The Times, Psychology Today, The Telegraph, The Guardian, and The Spectator are all robust sources, McPhail (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Psychology today and Forbes Contributors are both blogs with minimal editorial oversight, and The Guardian, and Spectator sources are both opinion pieces. More importantly: all of these were published while the BCHRT case was ongoing and primarily relate to that incident. It's not sustained coverage in reliable sources. Nblund talk 19:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's sustained coverage in multiple sources. From a quick initial search:
- Forbes: July 2019, December 2019;
- Toronto Sun July 2019, January 2020, August 2020
- Western Standard January 2020, August 2020
A more thorough search would uncover more. But it's clearly not the case that all the press coverage relates to a single point in time, given there is coverage in reputable sources spanning from at least May 2019 to August 2020. McPhail (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources are going to be useful in a BLP. Toronto Sun is a tabloid, and is still probably the best of the three you're citing. Forbes Contributors is effectively user generated content, and the Western Standard is run by a far right provocateur who has been repeatedly sued for libel. Nblund talk 20:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sources over a broad timeframe. E.g. The Times in May 2019, The Guardian (Canada) in August 2019, CBS in October 2019, The Washington Times in December 2019, The Washington Times in March 2020, The Guardian (Canada) in August 2020. McPhail (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is getting repetitive. Most of this coverage coincides with the trial, the portion that doesn't comes from niche right wing publications. There's an inherent NPOV problem here because there isn't neutral mainstream coverage of her beyond this single event. Nblund talk 23:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We have roughly 18 citations from sources ultimately owned by about 8 different independent parent entities, that have deemed this topic notable. The following are the parent publications. They each own one or more publications, but (to my knowledge) don't share ownership with another parent listed here Postmedia (National Post,Aldergrove Star), Corus(Global), Scott Trust Limited (Guardian), Government of Canada (CBC), Bell Media (CTV News), Daily News Brands (Torstar), Economist, and Key Media (Canadian Lawyer Magazine). Given the massive consolidation in Canadian media, this is about as diverse a set sources as you can reasonably hope for on an activist with national, but not international, prominence. Postmedia does dominate this article, in part, because they dominate what's left of Canadian print newspapers. If you read the Postmedia articles cited, you'll find that they are not hostile to trans activism as the Post Millenial is. They aren't making wild predictions. The single most negative/sensational headline cited in the article is " "Estheticians don't have to wax male genitalia against their will, B.C. tribunal rules"." which was by the CBC, hardly a bastion of right wing anti-trans hate. Postmedia is a large corporation, and they haven't yet assimilated all the publications into a single unit. The Toronto Sun and the National Post are not the same. Nothing in Postmedia is remotely related or comparable to Post Millenial, and nothing is in the same universe as InfoWars, or other crazies you find on the net covering this. The sources cited in this article are all reliable sources. They are all independent. This screams WP:GNG. So, saying Postmedia is the only publication with an interest in the case is rather absurd. -Rob (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that they were the only publication mentioning Yaniv, I said that they are the only publication that seems to have an interest in Yaniv that extends beyond WP:BLP1E. None of those other sources appear to have covered her latest lawsuits, or the harassment allegations, and only one (Global) appears to have covered her weapons charges. Post Media outlets appear to be an extreme outlier in terms of their interest in Yaniv herself. Nblund talk 02:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Globe and Mail (not Postmedia owned) mentioned " brandishing a taser on YouTube and complaining about a refusal to be seen by gynecologist". While small, it shows that Yaniv's actions beyond the case are actually significant. Also, the first mention of Yaniv was a decade before the case, by a non-Postmedia (or pre-Postmedia I guess, it gets confusing with corporate re-alignments) publication, for something totally unrelated to her gender identity. -Rob (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Globe and Mail story is an opinion piece, though If we look at high quality straight news sources like CBC, for instance, there's really no way we could write a standalone article. The Steve Bartman incident referenced in the WP:1E guideline seems instructive here: Bartman still turns up in the press from time to time nearly two decades after the incident, but reliable sources don't care much about his personal biography, and so Wikipedia doesn't either. Nblund talk 14:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's worth noting that while the existence of sources is usually sufficient for an article to be kept, evidence also needs to be provided of why BLP1E does not apply, and why the topic should not be covered on a page about a related but broader subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She has plenty of notability now and the page is well referenced. BLP1E does not apply as she has been reported on issues of 'Local activism', 'weapons charges', her 'harassment and predatory behaviour', her as National Sex Day organizer, her setting back Trans Activism gains, in addition to the waxing lawsuits x2. CatCafe (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Non-Postmedia sources covering non-Tribunal stuff: Global News (Corus), CTV (Bell Media), Georgia Straight (Media Central Corporation), North Shore News (Glacier Media). -Rob (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have links? Is any of this coverage from this year? Nblund talk 16:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading the article. Every claim has a citation. I try to always include both the name of publication and the publisher (like Postmedia) to make clear who owns what source. Am I required to repeat everything here for people who won't read the article? I find it sad people have to put more effort into afds than articles. -Rob (talk)
Okay, I went through and looked, and it appears to be a "no" except for one article from North Shore News, a regional newspaper. Nblund talk 20:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll now concede, if we use your made up standards, this article should definitely be deleted. You've moved the goal post so far. You're now saying we should discount all sources mentioning the thing that first gave her notability (even if they talk about other stuff), discount all publications by the #1 publisher of newspapers that use actual paper that dominates the industry in Canada even if they're reliable, discount all sources not from this year (discarding year-old and decade-old coverage), discount right wing papers (most commercial media), and discount all local and regional outlets. You have now taken BLP1E to such a ludicrous extreme, I can't conceive of anything that can be kept, because there'll always be a "but" that you can add to your escalating requirements. I'll just hope everyone else reads the whole article, and sees it easily meets WP:GNG, and goes beyond a single incident, by quite a bit. -Rob (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I recognise WP:BLP1E but don't think it applies here. Firstly, while the policy does not define an "event", I would not consider that a series of lawsuits in different courts (not a single lawsuit) over the period 2018-2020 comprise a single event. Secondly, while the HRT case is the most prominent aspect of Yaniv's notability, she has received press coverage for other activities, e.g. the Blaire White spat/taser arrest. Thirdly, it is questionable whether Yaniv is WP:LOWPROFILE; she has given multiple interviews, describes herself as working as a blogger and model, and was a contestant in the 2019 Miss BC pageant. McPhail (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To the extent she's mentioned anywhere else, she's generally mentioned as "the woman who filed the waxing case". So how is she different from people like Richard Heene? Heene is famous for the balloon boy hoax, but he's a publicity seeker, so he shows up in the news from time-to-time for other stuff. Nevertheless: nothing about him is newsworthy independently of his association with the hoax, so he's always "the balloon boy guy". Ken Bone and Steve Bartman are similar examples. None of them warrant standalone articles despite both having more diverse coverage than Yaniv. Nblund talk 16:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying you want a stand-alone incident article like 2 of your examples? I think there are many differences. The tribunal case coverage is actually all about Yaniv, and less about the tribunal, or other people involved in the case. Balloon Boy was about multiple people, not just a guy, a single incident article is better than multiple bios. If baseball fan had repeatedly snatched away balls from players, in multiple games, starting with locally covered games, before going to a nationally watched game, with an apparent ongoing pattern, and was found by a quasi-judicial body to be targeting non-white players, and to be doing it repeatedly in attempt to make a unfair profit, ignored official requests to stop, and reliable sources spoke about how his conduct impacted public perception of fans and baseball players, and people questioned why he was even allowed to keep doing this, then yes, I would totally give him his own proper biography. But, instead, Steve Bartman touched a ball within the rules of the game. The end. -Rob (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wrong Ken Bone. I meant this Ken Bone. I'm not sure a standalone is warranted either, but it would be an easier case to make than a BLP. Your own personal view of the significance of the 1 event doesn't make it any less of a BLP1E, and I think you're hairsplitting about "one event". Yaniv filed multiple simultaneous suits that were covered together. Nblund talk 02:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nblund you have made one vote here, and then 11 'comments' basically saying the same thing. Flooding the AFD repeating your position over and over again, is counterproductive. No need for it. CatCafe (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote, it's a discussion, and the recent comment was prompted by the AFD being relisted for additional discussion. Nblund talk 02:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Saw the noted at BLPN) I think BLP1E clearly applies, no matter that it was more than one legal case since they are all about the same issue. If the case is really so significant that it can't be adequately covered in the BC HRT article, it's possible there would be merit for a stand alone article on the cases although I'm unconvinced that's the case at this time. However I see no evidence of the kind of coverage we need to establish notability for a biography on living person. Some minor articles on random other issues definitely aren't it. If that is our standard, we would allow a lot more articles than we currently allow. We don't because we recognise that when people have received significant attention in the media for some specific issue, it's fairly common to get these random media reports about random stuff related to them that occurred. Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again to see if a final period of discussion yields a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 00:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article passes WP:SIGCOV & WP:GEOSCOPE consider moving to "Jessica Yaniv". In the previous AfD this was my !vote and rationale, and that has not changed - and I see someone took my advice. Previous: [[5]] Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was also the subject of a deletion review. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 10 Lightburst (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, soi your argument is that you were right last time despite deletion and endorsement saying you weren't? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two of these (Guardian.ca an journalpioneer.com) are the same National Post article I already mentioned, they're just reprinted in different Post Media outlets. These wouldn't count as unique sources. Nblund talk 22:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see anything about her outside of the lawsuit in the article except for the tabloid crap about "harassment." Which is extremely run of the mill and shouldn't be included in the article or a factor in the AfD. Since Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should look again and the reliability of the source and what they choose to cover trump whatever topic you deem as tabloid. [6][7][8][9] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS doesn't have anything to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and 100% someone being "charged" (not convicted mind you) with brandishing a taser in a fued with another YouTuber would go against WP:NOTNEWS. 100% it's tabloidish to have section about in a biographical article about "YouTube personality feuds that never went anywhere" and didn't have sustained coverage. There's a good reason "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" is a thing and trivial beefs between YouTubers is exactly why. Nice try with the trite personal attack though. Yawn. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The National Post extensively reporting on the disturbing pattern of alleged harassment and predatory behavior goes beyond ho-hum not news. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's "disturbing" isn't really the criteria for determining whether it's tabloid-ish coverage. For the most of those allegations of "harassment", we don't have an editorially diverse set of sources to draw on in order to write a fair article. Instead, we have an issue that only interests the right wing press. The fact that the allegations are serious but unproven and not widely covered is really a good reason that we would be reluctant to include them based on the current sourcing. Nblund talk 19:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not demand coverage by reliable sources serving the political spectrum. If the issue or person is not important to the left-wing or politically neutral RS, so be it. See WP:DUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and NPOV both require us to avoid giving undue weight to minority viewpoints. An entire article dedicated to covering something that only right wing outlets are interested in is inevitably going to end up running afoul of that directive. There are all sorts of controversies, moral panics, conspiracy theories etc that occur in niche corners of the internet that have no business becoming Wikipedia articles. Nblund talk 05:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in WP:NOTABILITY or WP:BIO that supports your argument and WP:DUE only requires that articles "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". If RS on the other end of the spectrum does not care to cover it, the right-wing RS are by default the majority of the coverage and and what they report still satisfies WP:DUE. Demanding otherwise is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem Morbidthoughts, the above editor considers the article to be sourced from "right wing" sources, ignoring the fact that 'centre' and 'left' sources are used such as CTV News, Sydney Star Observer, CBC News, The Globe and Mail, KUTV, Canadian Lawyer, The Guardian and Toronto Star. This is why the article needs watching as there is a concerted effort to remove non conservative refs so as to falsely make the BLP look partisan and ripe for deletion. CatCafe (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yet at the same time Morbidthoughts has removed references to nonreliable "right wing conservative" sources. So, your comment comes off a tad like hyperbolic gas lighting. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's your prob Adamant1? Coming in and accusing me of "hyperbolic gas lighting". I have no idea who you are or what you're talking about. You're a fool if you believe removing "nonreliable right wing conservative sources" is a bad thing. I think you'll find most disagree with you. CatCafe (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My comment had nothing to do with the "rightness" or "wrongness" of it. I was simply pointing out that they were removed. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know what Adamant1, I am over your 'hyperbolic gas lighting'. CatCafe (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Thumbs up." --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "The National Post extensively reporting on the disturbing pattern of alleged harassment and predatory behavior..." Allegations that are supported only by a single source would run contrary to the WP:BLPPUBLIC policy, which says: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.--Trystan (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point Trystan, and there was an article in the Calgary Herald supporting that. Yaniv was interviewed and the article supported your point referring to online racist harassment, but as one would expect Nblund removed the supporting ref claiming it was all an opinion piece when in actuality the article was based on an interview. A minority of editors are wikisplaining and working overtime in order to whiteant the article. CatCafe (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"wikisplaining", that's a new one. Since your the second most commenting user I assume your included yourself in that. "and working overtime in order to whiteant the article" Seeing as you've made more edits to the article at this point then Nblund has you must be referring to yourself. When I said you were gas lighting, your comments accusing other people in a semi-derogatory way of doing what your the one doing (like your doing here) is exactly what I was talking about. You've commented as many times as Nblund and edited the article more. So, you really shouldn't be taking issue with those things or pointing fingers at others about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you conversing at me when I'm conversing with someone else? True, but my aim is to expand the article and add supporting refs, those I refer to are trying the opposite - i.e whiteanting. You know what Adamant1, you're a spokesperson for everyone else, and now there's no need for them to respond to me thanks to sterling arguments on behalf. But perhaps "you really shouldn't be taking issue with those things or pointing fingers at others". Thanks, move on. CatCafe (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CatCafe:, I assume you're referencing my removal of this source. It was written by an opinion columnist and it appeared in the opinion section. There's no question that it's opinion. It also doesn't mention any of the sexual harassment alleged by the National Post. If you have other issues/accusations related to editor behavior, you should take them up with me on my talk page, or take them to ANI, or just drop them. They've got no relevance to a deletion discussion. Nblund talk 15:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Yaniv&oldid=980444775"