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 keep. Rough consensus is that being the subject of an in-depth Washington Post profile, together with other sources, is enough for notability. Sandstein 07:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keffals[edit]

[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)

Lack of significant coverage per WP:N. Only 1 article sourced from a well-regarded reliable source (Source 1, WashingtonPost) as per WP:RS that provides significant coverage and does not mention her in passing, as per WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC. PurpleTurdle (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)— PurpleTurdle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Comment: nom has no edits outside this nomination. Likely WP:SPA. SWinxy (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the lack of significant coverage of Keffals as per WP:N from reliable sources as per WP:RS and not that this is my first edit. I am a frequent enjoyer of Wikipedia and have noticed this article does not rise to certain levels in regard to writing quality and notability that Wikipedia usually maintains for its articles. PurpleTurdle (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)— PurpleTurdle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Is that why your first edit with a new account was to add a PROD to an article that clearly had various references in the article already, in direct violation of what PRODing an article is meant to be used for? Silver seren^C 05:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not violate anything as per WP:Proposed Deletion. The article was nominated for deletion due to the lack of sources providing significant coverage to the article's subject. In only two sources is the article's subject not mentioned in passing. One is a mainstream reliable source, and the other is a college newspaper in which the notability can be argued, which is why this discussion page was created. PurpleTurdle (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)— PurpleTurdle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Only 1 article that does not mention her in passing. This is inaccurate.

She is the subject of reference 1.
She is the subject of reference 2.
The entire point of reference 4 is to mention candidates, and she was a candidate.
She is the major focus of two out of six paragraphs in reference 10.
She is the subject of reference 11.
Chai T. Rex (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concur with the others concerned about SPA nominating this. Even that notwithstanding, as noted by the de-PRODder of this article, notability is shown in references, especially entire article in WaPo dedicated to subject. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ almost entirely out of spite for the nomination. --Golbez (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reason other than pure spite? Alduin2000 posted a more expansive reasoning for why this article may not meet notability requirements. Thank you. PurpleTurdle (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)— PurpleTurdle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No but I have decided I don't care. --Golbez (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: some of the sourcing I think is not as good as some of the keeps so far suggest. For example, reference 11 is by We Got This Covered which is listed as a generally unreliable source on WP:RSP. The idea that she is given "major focus of two out of six paragraphs in reference 10" also seems a little misleading; she is given a few sentences of coverage at most here and it is all in connection to an event to which she is of at most secondary importance. It seems that a better evaluation of this source is that she is only given a trivial mention. This is also clearly true of reference 4 which merely lists her name without writing anything else about her at all. Reference 11, alongside three other references in the article, are from a student newspaper. These may be reliable in this article to the extent that they are about their school and local community per WP:RSSM, but they seem a lot weaker when used to show notability compared to more mainstream sources. The remaining sources are by the Washington Post, Vice, Workers World, and Dexerto. The Washington Post article is clearly an example of significant coverage from a reliable source. The Vice article includes a tweet by Sorrenti but doesn't actually give any coverage to her in the article prose. I'm not sure if Workers World is reliable but it is clearly not independent in this case as it is reporting on the Workers World Party for which it is the official newspaper. Dexerto is listed as an unreliable source at WP:VG/RS. So overall we have one good source providing significant coverage and a few other more borderline student media sources to support notability. I would prefer to see significant coverage from some more reliable sources to support notability than this and would change my vote if anybody found more (I failed to find any more significant coverage on a brief search). I would also support making this article a draft so that it can be developed as more sourcing becomes available in future. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about this article https://londonfuse.ca/clara-sorrenti-young-determined-unapologetically-communist/ Stircla (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC) — Stircla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Significant coverage but I'm worried about the quality of the source. Looks like the website uses volunteer contributors but I'm not sure how much editorial oversight they have or whether or not pretty much anyone can contribute for them [1]. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. London Fuse looks like a local community magazine, heavily focusing on London, Ontario social justice and culture. That isn't bad by itself, but I don't think it will keep up with WP:RS standards. That, and a visit to their about page provides a pop-up announcing they're shutting down this month, due to volunteer burnout. I couldn't find even a mention that they have editors for the articles. JungleEntity (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal to have the nominator change the nomination reason over 15 hours after the nomination? Twice? SWinxy (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination was clarified, as I was not clear enough the first time. The content of the nomination was not majorly changed, just words reworked and references to the correct Wikipedia guidelines added. The first sentence is the main reasoning for this nomination for deletion. I am not sure if this is normal, but I do not intend to deceive anybody with "tricky editing" or anything of the sort as the history of this page and my edits are publicly available. Revert it if I am explicitly breaking any rules, but I do not believe I am. Thank you. PurpleTurdle (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)— PurpleTurdle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your edits are only publicly available if you mention your previous account(s). No editor starts editing Wikipedia with an AFD, knowing about Wikipedia policies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Alduin2000's reasons, there is really only one source of any relevance which is the Washington Post article dedicated to the subject itself and this is cited around nearly half (9 times) out of a total of 20 non-unique reference's. If more notable mainstream sources focused specifically on the subject itself can be found then it can be kept in my opinion but at the moment that is not so. Also on a general notability scale of viewership, (not that relevant to this discussion on the basis of guidelines but I thought I might mention it) someone averaging around 500 viewers on a Twitch stream doesn't really deserve an entire article dedicated to themselves, there are still YouTubers with millions of subscribers who don't have articles due to no notable sources covering them specifically! Tweedle (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying that she's notable because of her regular Twitch viewer count, so this isn't dispelling any of the arguments that support her notability. If someone does something newsworthy in front of a security camera with no regular viewers, that person still did something newsworthy, which can significantly contribute to the notability required for a Wikipedia article. Chai T. Rex (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is she notable for? The WP post is the only reliable, in depth source about her referenced in the article, and someone just having a WP article doesn't pass the notability requirements of Wikipedia. JungleEntity (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only wanted to dispel the notion that her average viewer count should decrease her notability. It merely doesn't add to it. As far as what she's notable for, I'll leave that for those discussing it elsewhere on this page. Chai T. Rex (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agreeing with what has already been said above. It's great that she's an activist and helping raise money for causes she's passionate about, but it very much seems like this person is only famous for "ratioing" and Twitch streaming (which, even then, is only averaging around 500 viewers according to Tweedle). I don't think that makes her notable enough for an article, and combined with having really only one good source, makes this a delete for me. Edit: WP:N, specifically WP:NTEMP and WP:NSUSTAINED should be heavily considered. JungleEntity (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant here why you personally think she's notable. You are attacking a strawman argument of your own creation. No one here is making the argument that we should keep the article because she ratios people or because she has such a huge Twitch follower or viewer count, so the fact that those don't justify keeping the article is irrelevant because it doesn't address the reasons actually given here for why we should keep the article. Edited to add: There was one argument that she was a particularly prominent trans Twitch streamer, which I don't think helps her notability in the sense of having a huge follower count alone, but no one is saying that she's huge overall. Chai T. Rex (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that no one here is making the argument that her ratioing or her Twitch statistics make her notable, but that's what the article is conveying to me (at least at the time I wrote my delete vote). If all the article talks about is her un-notable online career and un-notable political career, then I'm going to think that she doesn't meet our notability requirements, and thus vote delete. The reason why I say her online and political careers are un-notable is because the article only has one reliable citation that goes is directly about her, the Washington Post article. The others are either not about her directly, or don't meet Wikipedia's reliable sourcing requirements (as in the case with the London Fuse citation). No strawman argument needed.

Having one good citation isn't enough for WP:BLP. This, coupled with the fact that the only source that goes about Keffals in-depth is published very recently, makes me question whether she is notable enough for an article if she doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NTEMP and WP:NSUSTAINED. JungleEntity (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very week keep based on the sourcing present, I think she just barely clears the bar of notability (and given that she is likely to remain prominent and attract more coverage, I'm more lenient here than I would be in other borderline cases, where additional future sourcing is unlikely to exist ever). I disagree with some others that she isn't notable because she's mainly famous for Twitch streaming and her activity on Twitter; people can be notable for many things that others would consider rather silly. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if this does get closed as delete, I would prefer if the article is moved to draftspace instead of entirely deleted, as it is likely that the subject will attract more coverage in the future (so it would be beneficial to retain the existing article instead of starting over). Elli (talk | contribs) 16:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, with even the deletion !votes acknowledging that the WaPo profile is in-depth, significant coverage. Apart from that source, the aggregate of the other sources suggest the subject also meets WP:BASIC, which says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Arguments based on the average number of viewers of a Twitch stream can be ignored as that is not a metric we use. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 17:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the aggregation of the other sources meets WP:BASIC, or at least that the aggregation of some sources does.

Reference 4 is volunteer run, with no editorial oversight (they mention nothing about editors on their site), and is shutting down this month.

Reference 2, reference 5, and reference 8 are all from a university student newspaper, and while that doesn't make it intrinsically unreliable, they all focus on hyper-localized events and groups (in this case, the university), and none have the Keffals as the primary subject of the article.

Reference 11 is confusing - I don't know why Keffals is mentioned at all, but it seems to be just a list of recent "notable stories", and the little blurb about the WP writing about Keffals is probably more than trivial in WP:N eyes. Reference 7 may be in the same boat, but is better than reference 11.

Reference 10 only includes a small blurb about how Keffals highlighted the incident, and most definitely does not meet the non trivial standards in WP:N.

This article in general probably has a lot to be looked at through WP:N. Is Keffals' notability WP:NTEMP? Or WP:NSUSTAINED? The WP article was published 3 days ago, and everything before 2022 (besides her comment on a WP article) are just her involvement in local political groups, and even are just mentions of her leadership roles. JungleEntity (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to note (as I was a delete !vote who acknowledged the WaPo profile as significant coverage), I also don't think the other sources amount to a fulfillment of BASIC. It notes that multiple less substantial sources may be used to make up notability but also notes that trivial coverage is excluded from this consideration ("trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability"). However, as I stated in my vote, I believe that the only non-trivial coverage that is from reliable, independent sources is the WaPo article and possibly the student newspaper pieces. For the purposes of notability, multiple pieces from the same institution are generally thought to constitute a single independent source, so the student newspaper pieces do not amount to the "multiple independent sources" required for fulfillment of BASIC. It seems that since I wrote my !vote here, an article from Columbia Journalism Review has also been added. But I don't think this contributes to BASIC because (per WP:N) "It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works" and the CJR article is basically just covering the WaPo story and so doesn't constitute a separate work for the purposes of showing notability. Overall, I think my basic problem is that it doesn't appear that the sourcing is there to be able to create a relatively complete article without resorting to original research. And I think that is a solid sign that GNG and BASIC are not met. Alduin2000 (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Considering the WaPo article is focused on the subject's Twitch career, I'd say those metrics matter. Not sure who "we" is though. Furthermore, Youtube views and likes on tweets that are about anything BUT "ratios" seem to have less than 1/4th of average engagement. WP:BASIC says "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable" and yet, there's only 1, WaPo. None of the other sources that give some sort of significant coverage can be considered reliable. AustralianFarmer (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC) — AustralianFarmer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. She's the most popular trans twitch streamer and does a lot of trans activism. That makes her notable. Snokalok (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC) — Snokalok (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Being the most popular (debatable on metrics terms) or one of the most popular of 'x' doesn't mean that said subject warrants or deserves a Wikipedia article dedicated to themselves because of that merit. As I have already pointed out there are many YouTuber's with millions of subscribers who don't have articles due to lack of sourcing and I am willing to wager there are many popular YouTuber's/Twitch streamers/TikToker's etc. of 'x' nationality for example (you can pick any identity here) who don't have articles where this same argument would apply. In this case as already previously mentioned meets limited notability with only really one good source being decent with the others being of questionable quality. Tweedle (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete agreeing with what has already been said above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.44.9 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting this IP's only contributions have been deliberately misgendering the subject of the article and this vote. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the WaPo article in combination with the other references is sufficient to show notability. Printfn (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The individual is the center of the WaPo article but in the rest of the cited material she is only mentioned in passing or the reputability of the publications is questionable. I question the motives and reasoning for this article's existence as well seeing as the individual's twitter mentions obtaining a wikipedia article in order to get verified on twitter: https://web.archive.org/web/20220630173516/https://twitter.com/suskeffals/status/1541538361504108544 MerlinsSister (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)— MerlinsSister (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Her tweet is irrelevant, as she didn't create the article or edit it. There's literally no policy on Wikipedia allowing the deletion of an article because the subject is happy about its existence or finds it useful. Edited to add: Her tweet (9:46 PM · Jun 27, 2022) came about a day after the first edit creating the article (20:29, 26 June 2022‎) and about half a day after the edit moving it from a draft into an actual article (09:51, 27 June 2022). It's clear from this that she didn't know it existed when tweeting. As far as the timing, this is also during the same day and the day after the publication of the Washington Post article about her (June 26, 2022 at 6:00 a.m. EDT) Chai T. Rex (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the other references are lacking in reliability. The only other reference which can be argued contribute to slight significance are from the student newspaper, Western University's The Gazette. WP:BASIC states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;", and although they might meet reliability, multiple articles from the same source would not count as "multiple independent sources". Hence, the WaPo article is the only reliable source (WP:RS) that gives significant coverage as per WP:N. An article with only one reliable source providing all significant coverage does not meat WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. PurpleTurdle (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)— PurpleTurdle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, but it doesn't say "if the depth of coverage in any given article is not substantial", it says "in any given source". Multiple articles by the same source don't count as multiple sources, sure, but it can shift the depth of coverage from that source from slight to repeated and more significant. Chai T. Rex (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So which multiple independent sources, meeting reliability and significance requirements, combine to demonstrate notability? Sources 2, 5, 8 are from arguably reliable Western University's The Gazette. Source 5 contains one sentence referencing the subject. Source 8 contains no mention of the subject besides a picture. There is no focus on the article subject at all. Sources 4 & 7 do not meet reliability requirements. Source 6 is of no notability at all, a local politician running for local office is not notable. Source 3 meets reliability, but only contains a single quote from the article's subject, it does not contribute to notability at all. It is the same with sources 9 & 10, with 9 containing no mention of the subject besides a reference to a tweet and 10 containing one sentence pertaining to the subject. Source 11 is a reference to Source 1. Again, only one source, Source 1 (WaPo) definitely meets both reliability and significance, as per WP:GNG. Source 2 can be argued on reliability and its contributions to notability. Which sources do you combine to reach notability? PurpleTurdle (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No obvious indication of notability: low follower count, minimal coverage by third-party sources, and no real "claim to fame". As a politics streamer, Keffals falls under the notability guidelines for entertainers (WP:ENT), but she does not fulfill either of the two criteria listed. Much like what happened with the drafting process of the article for Vaush, significant work is needed to solidify Keffals' notability. However, unlike Vaush, Keffals does not have many significant acts to her name, nor a significant following. There are many other politics streamers who have a niche subject focus similar to Keffals' and a much larger following, yet they fail notability guidelines for the same reason. Yue🌙 06:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Userfy. The discussion here has mentioned the Washington Post article, but I'd like to emphasize a few things about it. This is a major newspaper of a large nation writing about a foreigner who isn't a major political leader and putting that article on the front page of their 27 July 2022 print edition ^[1][2].

The struggle for transgender rights is a particularly hot topic right now, and I believe that the article was given such prominent placement because of that, as well as because, as far as transgender advocacy by transgender people goes, she's prominent in that sphere.

I don't believe she has much notability because of her actions considered without context. She's not anywhere near the top Twitch streamer. Her ratios by themselves are not newsworthy. And so on.

I believe that the notability of the fight for transgender rights is what significantly adds to her notability, as she is one of the leading individual advocates out of the marginalized people involved on one side of the issue.

This is about a struggle for and against the rights of a marginalized minority group, whose members will tend to be much less prominent because there aren't as many of them and because they're marginalized.

I don't think that it makes sense to say that the members of the marginalized group should have to meet contextless standards of notability, as that would mean that Wikipedia would give more prominence to the opponents to and allies of the marginalized community than the marginalized community members themselves, which is very likely to present a lopsided view of the issue.

I believe that the topic of transgender rights is suitably notable, and that the discussion should be about whether she is notable enough in that context, rather than notable enough without regard to that context. Chai T. Rex (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add a bit to that. The topic of transgender rights is notable enough, so Wikipedia should include, to attain a reasonable level of completeness, some prominent individual transgender advocates who are transgender themselves and what they've done to advocate for it. That's an important part of that topic. They shouldn't be excluded because they're not prominent in a contextless sense. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wether or not someone or something gets an article on Wikipedia is determined by WP:N. This includes the WP:GNG, which must be met in order to consider a subject notable. This is determined by non-trivial secondary coverage by reliable sources. Inherited notability, the idea a subject must have an article because of something like a group they're apart of or their relation to a given matter, does not contribute to a subject's notability. Yes, the fight for trans rights is an important and notable one. But just because the article's subject is apart of this fight does not give notability. Again, notability is determined from coverage from reliable sources. It is great she's doing work for her community, but that by itself does not demonstrate notability. These guidelines for notability are not contextless, the "multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works" are the context.

More on inherent notability can be found on WP:INHERENT. PurpleTurdle (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't address WP:NTEMP and WP:NSUSTAINED. Many protesters and activists in the civil rights era also had one-time interviews that appeared on the front page of a prominent newspaper for a given day. I also agree with PurpleTurdle - a person that is even slightly prominent in the notable trans right movement doesn't make them notable in of itself. JungleEntity (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is quite close to the line, with one top quality source (The WP) and a set of lesser ones, but I think it falls on the right side of significant coverage. The coverage in The Gamer is substantial enough and it demonstrates that she is notable for more than one thing. This would be a "weak keep" !vote but I'm not keen on an SPA launching an AfD, particularly when the subject is an individual subject to sustained and coordinated bad faith attempts to remove her from multiple other platforms and then additional SPAs, some with transphobic vandalism in their edit history, turn up just to advocate for deletion. Of course, that doesn't negate the other people !voting delete in good faith but I think this AfD has become a trainwreck and the only sensible option is to keep the article, at least for now, and see where we are in a few months time. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she is clearly in the public interest to be documented here and will likely increase in political importance as time goes onImmanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 09:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable and sourced to me, but a SPA launching an AfD is concerning and I agree completely with the rationale from DanielRigal — this is not an appropriate AfD and, frankly, I would suggest a checkuser should be performed on the nominating sock — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please ((ping)) me in replies)
Keep. Passes GNG. Per others, the involvement of SPAs in this AfD is concerning. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the WP source puts them onto GNG for me. If consensus is ultimately delete, suggest userfy. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are currently ten reliable sources cited in the page makes it notable and and sourced well enough to keep. I agree with other commenters that the involvement of SPAs in this is disturbing. I agree that a checkuser should be performed on the nominating sock as OwenBlacker points out. I also agree with what DanielRigal is saying, since the AfD is clearly a trainwreck and should be kept. I completely disagree with Yue, Tweedle, 173.70.44.9, AustralianFarmer, Stircla, JungleEntity, and the strange deletion reasoning by MerlinsSister. Historyday01 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should WP:LGBT be notified of this AfD? LightNightLights ^(talk) 14:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is already on the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions but if you think that would help then please feel free. DanielRigal (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would just like to note the strange influx of comments above. Even if an account is an SPA, that does not discredit valid points brought up. Non-SPA users Alduin2000 and JungleEntity present very valid arguments about this article's apparent lack of notability due to not fully meeting WP:GNG, yet the users above give no substantial reasoning or even discuss source reliability, which has been the main discussion so far on this page. PurpleTurdle (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, speaking for myself, I would like to point to WP:NOTSPA and WP:FIRSTEDIT. I have IP edited before. Make of this what you will. PurpleTurdle (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I'd love to know 1. how the nominator figured out how to nominate an article for deletion in their first edit and 2. where all these "strong delete" votes are coming from. I wouldn't rule out that "PurpleTurdle" knows the answer to both of these questions. --VersaceSpace 🌃 01:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"PurpleTurdle" asserts WP:NOTSPA and WP:FIRSTEDIT. "PurpleTurdle" also wonders where all the WP:AGF went. PurpleTurdle (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AGF considerably strained by no less than 4 editors indistinguishable from SPAs, and an, on the face of it, transphobic IP.

AGF is not a licence to game the system. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand AGF is not a license to game the system. I have presented my reasoning for nominating this article for deletion and that is it. I could not care less wether or not I am deemed a SPA or associated with others. I am here to participate in discussion. PurpleTurdle (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chai T. Rex's source analysis. I think being the subject of a profile in The Washington Post goes a great deal to demonstrating notability. I also share the concerns of DanielRigal and many other editors about why a PROD followed by an AFD was the first edits made by the proposer. Given the harassment Keffals faces both on Twitch and Twitter, it is understandably suspicious. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand the concerns of SPAs, but I really think we should concern this AfD only on the merits of the articles itself. If users are bringing up good points, then those should be judged on their own merit, regardless if the account looks like an SPA. Many point out that the Washington Post article suffices for notability. WP:BLP and WP:N disagree. I know [WP:IAR] and such, but these guidelines are in place for a reason. Only one reliable source that goes in-depth on the subject isn't enough for WP:BLP, especially one that was published less than a month ago. I still keep my delete vote, and if this article is deleted, I hope it goes back to the drafting stage, until WP:NSUSTAINED is established. Keffals may very well be notable, and other reliable sources may write full length articles about her in the future, but as of now, that doesn't seem to be the case. JungleEntity (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG due to: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/26/keffals-trans-twitch-streaming-news/ SIGNIFICANT coverage combined with non significant coverage in other sources. WP:BASIC allows If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability so I think one piece of significant coverage plus various less compelling ones added together are good. There is a source in The Gamer above, and there are lots of sources talking about her run for political office as a member of the communist party - i.e. she is notable for multiple things. So that's the technical/policy argument. And the simple, common sense, encyclopaedic argument is more like: she got profiled in the Washington Post? That's about as notable as anyone can get, why are we even discussing this? I fear sexism or transphobia is a factor here. I've not seen any AfDs about cis men who appeared on the front page of WP and ran for political office. 14:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CT55555 (talk • contribs)
Local politicians, especially those who ran locally and were not elected, do not guarantee notability, as per WP:POLITICIAN and as discussed in WP:Notability (politics). Her political career is not what she is known for; she is currently known for her trans activism, twitch streaming, and social media. Coverage of her political career may contribute to WP:BASIC, but only if those sources are reliable, independent of each other, and non-trivial, as discussed above. PurpleTurdle (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said that she is notable as per WP:POLITICIAN. I have said I think she is notable as per WP:GNG, her political activities as just a small part of that. I think the coverage is in reliable sources, is non-trivial and I think that Washington Post and others are independent of her. I have considered your reply and I do not agree with it, I remain keep. All the best, CT55555 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just found this article by CBC News about LondonFuse. Seems to suggest it is shutting down because it was refused grants because they refused to alter their political writing/reporting. Suggests to me that it can probably be trusted as a reliable local news source; CBC finding its shutting down important enough to cover also seems to suggest it was an important local news source. Might be relevant to assessing it as a source. Still not 100% sure if this is a good source or if it would provide enough significant coverage to push the page over to notability, but it would definitely make notability more plausible if it is a legit source. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can really only echo CT55555's surprise. A two thousand word profile on the front page of the Washington Post, and we're not sure if she meets WP:GNG? It's pretty notable to be covered in such depth by a national newspaper. It's especially notable to be covered in such depth by a foreign national newspaper. I understand the WP:SUSTAINED argument, but I don't think that quite applies here: if the WashPo article was about a specific event, a particular one of her streams, or something like that, it would be correct to apply in this case. But the article is about her and her Twitch streaming in general - it's not a single event receiving disproportionate coverage in a way that throws WP:GNG out of wack. -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2022 (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.