The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Matty Healy. Daniel (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P05[edit]

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

P05 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is full of biased language and includes analysis of the citations to imply a particular point of view. It also conflates different issues (i.e. mentioning a laundry list of Healy's past "controversies", Banks' comments), and tries to connect it to the episode with much editorial bias, and even links it to other pages (i.e. Olivia Benson). Some examples below:

There was also an attempt to shoehorn the page to another page the editor created with the same conflation and bias:

This page is unnecessary as material for this page has already been discussed at length on Matty Healy's page. This should be deleted / redirected to The Adam Friedland Show instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiasedBased (talk • contribs) 03:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)— BiasedBased (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would like to express my amazement that in six days, no other editors from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matty Healy (2nd nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross MacDonald discussions have chirped in on this. (I'm not planning on pinging anyone, as that would be WP:CANVASSING, although I see that 119.94.172.56 has done just that.) The then-bloated Background section I included due to the wealth of "what is the Matty Healy controversy" style articles that came out in May such as [1][2][3], though I suppose it is already covered in the parent article, and the Banks section is well within scope as a reliably sourced direct response to Healy's comments on the controversy. To expand upon the above, I would like to point out to the closer of this nomination the following:
  1. that purported bias is a surmountable problem and therefore not a reason for deletion,
  2. that WP:ATTACK does not apply here as all content requiring reliable sources has them (i.e., not the WP:LEDE or MOS:PLOT - although I'd really like to see better sourcing for what's left of the Background section),
  3. that plots are supposed to be primary sourced per WP:PLOTCITE (which is what I meant by "what I heard"), and
  4. that with five months of coverage, this article makes mincemeat of WP:GNG.
WP:DUE "requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources", and I am satisfied that I have done so.--Launchballer 12:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page's original title before move was Matty Healy's appearance on The Adam Friedland Show The page move with the podcast title can be argued as another evasion of WP:NPOVFACT given its content. The content of the page has already been covered in Matty Healy's page (after disputes, and eventual consensus by several editors), as well as the podcast's page.
*Evidence of content forking to evade neutrality *
(1) The creator of this page has a history of editing Healy's page repeatedly about the podcast episode like here and here among a few, and even listed all of the things Healy has apparently been accused in the page's lede despite claims not being reflected with WP:NPOV in the body.
(2) Violates WP:NOTSCANDAL / WP:NOTOPINION, giving undue weight and rehash upon rehash of the topic. A cherry-picked list of Healy's perceived past indiscretions included by the creator to serve as "Background" section of this page even though sources cited do not relate it to the podcast is an attempt to establish notability and highlight negative viewpoints. Pages should be WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIARY with the page creator having also done this in Healy's page previously like here. This page is a patchwork very loosely sewn together to appear notable in itself.
(3) Page also does not pass WP:NOTESSAY especially after a particular mass revert by the page creator after another editor's cleanup with an Edit Summary stating "Sorry, but I know what I heard." despite The Guardian explicitly saying: "It’s worth noting that a lot of fans are incorrectly attributing a lot of the co-hosts’ comments to Healy."[1] And The New Yorker recounting: "Later, he laughed as the hosts did impressions of hypothetical Japanese guards at German concentration camps."[2] ThijsStoop (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One, this is basically an WP:ATTACK page based on the point of view it was written, content (full of editorialising, original research, sourcing bias, indiscriminate inclusion of irrelevant incidents to put the subject in a worse light), and intolerance of the creator in revisions by other users as pointed above. The tone has already been an issue on Matty Healy's page for so long (one editor was even named "I Hate Matty Healy" lol), and his page just recently became stable WP:STABLE. Which leads me to...
Two, conveniently, after Healy's page reached its stable version after much content disputes and edit warring, this was created. This is simply content forking for WP:WEIGHT to what was already covered extensively in Healy's page.
Three, again, this is riddled with original research. Maxen Embry (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/30/taylor-swift-matty-healy-fan-culture
  2. ^ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/06/05/who-is-matty-healy

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like to hear from other editors whether or not this article could be seen as an attack page. I do know I've never seen 29,303 bytes written on ONE episode of a podcast series so it clearly is overly detailed in relation to its significance. The question is whether the bias that is argued is in the article is inherent in the article's existence or whether it can be corrected through editing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'd selectively merge to the Matt Healy article. This is perhaps too recent to discuss at this point; it appears to have had the normal celebrity news discussion cycle (entertainment news sections of the various media), not sure this has much of a lasting consequence. TOOSOON, perhaps revisit in a year. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, notability was the one element of this I wasn't expecting to be questioned. Five months is a pretty long news discussion cycle, more than enough I would have thought to satisfy WP:SUSTAINED.--Launchballer 11:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Matty Healy. Big POVFORK issues here. There shouldn't be a beat-by-beat description of the podcast episode. We should veer away from celebrity gossip and all quotations as much as possible. There are some middling-quality sources that are not good for sensitive BLP content: Forbes contributors are a bad source in general; Insider, HuffPost and Rolling Stone should be avoided for these claims. — Bilorv (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More