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. The nominator has already been notified of the problems with this nomination here. However, the problems are unlikely to affect the outcome considering the weight of arguments.

Some delete !votes are based on WP:BLP1E, but most seem to only address the first point of the policy, while the other two are mostly ignored. Failing any point in the policy means WP:BLP1E does not apply. Subsequently, less weight are given.

There is a consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E is not applicable.

WP:BIODEL is not eligible here as the subject has not requested deletion along with other unsatisfied criteria. However, editors should be careful with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV when editing the article. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That Vegan Teacher[edit]

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

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

As per the ((Notability)) tag added by LightningComplexFire, I am starting a deletion discussion. This is a procedural nomination, so for now I personally will not be making an argument. I have no prejudice against this discussion being closed as speedy keep if such a consensus arises. Linguist111talk 10:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not up to us to determine which reasons for going famous are valid enough for a wikipedia article. That's the whole point of using secondary sources. Given that she went viral more than once for inflammatory statements, she does pass WP:GNG, and WP:BLP1E while we're at it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish One of the sources was mistyped to be a duplicate– i changed it. There are sources not directly talking about the ban from WP:RS now.
Going through the three criteria in WP:BLP1E (keeping in mind that all three must be failed to delete the article under BLP1E):
  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. We have more than one event covered by the reliable sources, in different contexts.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. I highly doubt that ThatVeganTeacher is going anywhere, any time soon. She'll have to rebuild a platform, but the stupid things she says are designed to go viral and cause outrage, as the coverage shows.
  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. This one doesn't really apply anymore, but i'll say that given the amount of context in the sources around the ban, that this counts as substantially well documented. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron, And I was going to say, no, we don't have more than one event covered by sources. She was banned by TikTok was the sole event covered. See WP:NOTNEWS 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LightningComplexFire, I made a mistake in drafting the article– one of the sources got duplicated over another. I corrected the mistake, showing that she was covered in perennially reliable sources at more than one point in time for her inflammatory statements. We can find other sources, too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure a response got deleted because of an edit conflict– could someone please restore that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron, I deleted it because I couldn't explain what I meant well. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LightningComplexFire, no problem. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron, Lemme re-word it. I was going to say, that in CallMeCarson's case, the article was kept because he was convicted of a crime, even if it's his only thing to fame. But in this case, being homophobic and racist isn't exactly a crime in Canada, but it's against the rules in TikTok, making her not convicted of a crime. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LightningComplexFire, I disagree with that characterization. The explanation AviationFreak laid out was that "Carson's coverage occurred because of his prior notability and status. If an "average joe" had been accused of sexual misconduct involving a minor, it would cause a small and local media blip." At its core, the argument was that Carson was notable for multiple events, even though one far overshadowed the rest. The other argument was "based on WP:IAR. Any subject who has millions of people actively interested in and aware of them is notable in my mind, regardless of their coverage in secondary reliable sources. I would say this of any subject with a following of millions, which is why I stated above that there should be a guideline dealing with internet notability." theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron, Also, I know sub count isn't a criteria of deletion, but many big YouTubers had their page deleted even if their sub count is in the millions, like SML. ~40K subs is WAY too small to warrant an article. But again, sub count isn't a deletion reason, WP:BLP1E is. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but she had millions of subscribers prior to her TikTok ban. We'll cut off this subthread here, anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92 The controversial videos and the resulting ban are two separate events– they may tie into the same person, or be a part of the same storyline, but they are distinct events. I don't understand how the reliable sources provided preclude notability, either. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SoyokoAnis you're welcome to edit the article if you don't believe it provides a neutral point of view. I don't think writing about someone notable should be avoided because we don't want to platform them– we're not giving her ideas any kind of undue traction. Does the article not pass WP:GNG? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron I don't really know much about her except for what's in the article. SoyokoAnis 03:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then this AfD would be removed. It's useless to have an AfD on this topic if there are notable sources on it. SoyokoAnis 03:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's where my head's been for quite a while– we do have reliable sources, quite a few listed at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I really haven't seen a solid argument for removal yet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111talk 00:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsolm: I've been responding to a lot of people on this AfD, and clearly I have a bias here, but I feel very strongly that it's not up to us to decide what reasons for popularity are valid. This article passes WP:GNG, and it therefore should be kept. Maybe this'll never be a featured article, but deleting it just because she got popular on a platform of hate isn't wikipedia's policy.theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Karen Elizabeth Diekmeyer: Hello there, That Vegan Teacher. I wrote the first draft of your article, and while anyone can edit Wikipedia, we do have some rules about how you can edit pages about yourself or people you're close to, which you can read about here. If you have primary sources, such as your website, that can verify things like name, date of birth, and city of birth, those would help us correct the record.
  • Second, the article doesn't say that you are racist or homophobic: it says that your comments have been characterized by other sources as racist and homophobic. I'm sure you'd agree with that statement, even if you disagree on whether the sources are accurate.
  • Third, the thing I think is most important about Wikipedia is that the barrier for inclusion is not truth. Rather, we add what can be verified by reliable, secondary sources. And for controversial articles like yours, we tend to attribute the source inline. You can read more about that here.
  • Fourth, we aren't discussing the general content of the article here. You can do that on the article's talk page. Here is where we discuss whether or not this article should be included in Wikipedia at all. If you have objections you'd like to raise, I or another editor would be happy to field them there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please move content discussion to the talk page, but I agree since this is a WP:BLP we have to careful when characterizing people or comments as racist/homophobic. --hroest 18:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Julius177: Although I agree that not much of a cleanup is needed, we should probably reword a few things in the article. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2021 (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