Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Shepherd

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. No prejudice towards a merge and redirect at a later date. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Shepherd

[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)

Very obviously WP:BLP1E. This should be deleted and salted. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd has moved beyond single event notability as described in WP:BLP1E, so to address WP:BLP1E's 3 criteria:

1) There are reliable sources describing her post-incident.
2) given the ongoing controversy around free-speech and academic freedom it is unlikely she will fade into obscurity
3) her role was the key focus of the original incident and has then given her a basis for subsequent activism.

Knobbly (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wilfrid Laurier University#2017 free speech controversy where it is already covered. This person may become notable enough for an article if she gets enough on-going coverage for activism, like Monica Lewinsky and David Hogg (activist), but it is WP:TOOSOON for an article independent of the college's article. Salting or full protecting a redirect would be overkill. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 04:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Lewinsky and David Hogg (activist) aren't good examples to prove WP:TOOSOON; Lewinsky because of her prominence in recent American politics and David Hogg because he's become the face of the Stoneman Douglas survivours and gun control protests. More comparable examples would be some of the lesser known surviours and activists like Ryan Deitsch or Alex Wind.Knobbly (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point went over your head; I was using those examples in opposition to the proposed WP:Salting of the article. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 23:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right I was jumping on your WP:TOOSOON argument without acknowledging your argument against salting, sorry. Knobbly (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Lindsay Shepherd became a notable person in November 2017 and as subsequent coverage indicates remains a notable person, for example she received the Harry Weldon Canadian Values Award in May 2018, additionally there are are no lack of reliable sources atesting to her notability then and now. Knobbly (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ If the only coverage of Shepherd was that related to the initial incident then this would be a clear delete but she has clearly decided to use that incident as a springboard for further activities and lasting press coverage so I don't see any lingering BLP concerns. (I would also be fine with a deletion based on WP:TOOSOON as advocated above.) ElKevbo (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note, however, that the article must be rewritten if it's kept; right now it focuses almost exclusively on the one incident and makes an implicit argument for WP:BLP1e. If it cannot be rewritten to have a larger focus on Shepherd then it must be deleted on those grounds. ElKevbo (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subsequent activism is entirely tied to the one incident, and it is too soon to know if that will be sustained in any meaningful way. See WP:SUSTAINED. This person may be notable one day but now it is WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my !vote to Delete. The arguments presented by those advocating to delete the article are convincing and I don't see how this article can be rewritten so it's not primarily focused on the precipitating incident. Of course, I remain open to the idea that the subject could become independently notable at a future date when an article would be appropriate. ElKevbo (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has received significant and lasting coverage since the incident, and thus meets WP:BLP1E and, more importantly, WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She came to the public eye less than a year ago. That is hardly "lasting" in the real world. I realize that 6 months is an infinity in the 24-hour news cycle and in social media. WP is neither. If you look at the sources there is only one outside of the timeframe of key events and that is about an award she was given last month..; about the key events. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the subject of the article has been well sourced and adequately describes the incident and moreover since this topic meets WP:BLP1E. Denver| Thank you (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has earned permanent notability by passing the will people still be looking for this article in ten years test as of yet. No prejudice against recreation in the future if the material circumstances change, but nothing here is enduringly notable as of today. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since everything is well sourced and the incident attracted lots of media attention. I think this article can be expanded in the future and this kinds of articles will perhaps become a part of something bigger in the future. Very good and important article.MayMay7 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Other stuff exists!" is generally not a good argument; "other stuff might eventually exist!" is worse. XOR'easter (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only "sustained" or "lasting" attention is itself a blip — a non-notable award due entirely to the original, singular incident. Circumstances might change, and if they do, the article can be created anew. WP:BLP1E, WP:TOOSOON. (Also fails WP:PROF.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has received significant attention and interest; there has been, and continues to be, much media coverage, and she is clearly a relevant and notable figure for this reason. The article is very well sourced. I believe this article should be kept. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improvement but this is a BLP for many events. Heterodox Academy award is recent, speaking at the Humanist Association is recent. The lawsuit is ongoing and the drafting of a UBC free speech policy inspired by this is also ongoing. Connor Behan (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an obvious WP:BLP1E. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is textbook WP:BLP1E -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Weak keep. Clearly a notable story that deserves mention, but the individual probably does not satisfy WP:BLP. --George100 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because coverage has been lasting and significant. Meets WP:GNG and seems best covered in stand alone article. DynaGirl (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2018 (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.