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 Delete; see snowball clause‎. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin Hadasa Kelly

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

Tamzin Hadasa Kelly (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)

(Preëmptively stating my COI here; I'm a friend of Tamzin, and they were my mentor when i first joined the wiki)

I'm happy to see Wikipedians get more coverage, but I think it's important we make sure they firmly clear notability guidelines beforehand, and I'm quite unsure if this article fits. It's cobbled together from brief mentions in a variety of sources, and while reliable, I'm not sure if it really goes beyond run-of-the-mill cursory coverage. The exception of course is the Slate profile about her RFA; the real question here is if there is a better location to place that information (perhaps in our coverage of Requests for Adminship in general). Coverage of Wikipedia is of course should not be dismissed notability-wise compared to coverage of any organization, but I think we should avoid generating brief and trivia-laden articles about our administrators when there is not a solid bedrock for an article. If someone writes a biographical article about Tamzin somewhere(i highly recommend journalists do this), than we can return to covering him on firm footing. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict. Was writing a nomination at the same time. Note that comments up through Tryptofish' predate this conomination's addition.]
This article is about me. I will leave it to y'all to debate the merits of WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E, and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I'd like to approach this from a different, slightly unusual direction, though, one informed by years of advocating for BLP subjects. I'd just ask that y'all imagine someone who shows up to BLPN and tells this story:

So one of my coworkers wrote an article on me. (I wouldn't call us personal friends, but we're friendly at work, and have socialized at work gatherings.) Then a few other coworkers started to edit it. Some I know well; others know of me and I know of them but I don't think we've ever directly interacted. One or two I've been in conflict with before.

I tried to be helpful by listing sources about me. For completeness, I mentioned one source that had a lot of inaccuracies, but I was clear about that and even linked to an explanation of its errors. Someone then cited it, specifically a part I'd flagged as objectively incorrect. That part, at least, got removed after I complained, but since then, my coworkers keep making the strangest edits. One removed a photo of me because it wasn't "professional". He didn't add a more professional photo of me or anything, just removed it. He also insists the article can't use the pronouns I requested, even though my understanding of your site's rules is that that's required. He also removed my whole Personal life section because of something called WP:TRIVIA, but I read that whole page and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with that.

Then a bunch of my coworkers got into a whole argument about some drama I was in a few years ago. There was a news article about it at the time, and I was really happy that the article got all the important details right. But for some reasons my coworkers just cannot. get. this. right. They misstated our own company's policies, which you'd think they'd know themselves, and which the source gets right. They took two things I said in that controversy, which the source correctly compares and contrasts, and merged them into one statement I never made. Four people discussed that, and ironically the only one who kind of saw the error was the person with the strongest conflict of interest, someone who was also involved in the same drama. Both of those have been resolved, although another error, mis-paraphrasing something I said (again, that the source gets right) remains. Someone said that the error needs to stay or otherwise they'd be violating copyrights??? Meanwhile one coworker complains that it's inappropriate for me to have pointed out these errors. I really don't understand this site.

Now at this point someone might say to that new user, "That's a user conduct issue. Go take it to the administrators." To which the new user says,

But you don't understand! Most of these people are administrators. I looked at their edits to other pages, and they all seem fine! I don't know what it is about my article that makes them all suddenly get things wrong, and remove things based on rules that don't exist, but for some reason they are. I don't think any of them, or at least not most of them, are doing anything bad on purpose. But I do think if I'm going to have a Wikipedia article, it shouldn't be written by my own coworkers—not if they can't do it accurately and respectfully.

What would we say in that situation? I think we'd say that an article entirely written by people with COIs, that keeps attracting factual errors, poorly-explained removals, and generally poor editing, should not exist. The obvious rebuttal here is the rule of necessity: If all Wikipedians have a COI, then who can write about Wikipedians? To which I would say, that's a good point for Wikipedians who are unavoidably notable, and in that case it's somewhat offset because their notability will tend to attract a broader cross-section of editors. But for people like me, who are either just a bit below or a bit above the notability bar, and who the community is apparently unable to edit competently about, the only fair implementation of WP:COI and WP:BLP is to just not have an article.

TL;DR: I may technically be notable; depends on how you interpret a few guidelines. But a BLP is a social contract, and the community seems fundamentally unable to hold up its end of the bargain here. If this sounds a bit emotional, it's because it is. But I hope the community will see that this is consistent with my long-expressed views about BLPs in general. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 23:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per my analysis of the sourcing situation on the talk page. I go into detail on Talk:Tamzin Hadasa Kelly#Notability about that. To summarize, I think the subject pretty clearly meets WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, and neither does WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE (because Tamzin has been neutral about the article's existence). If Tamzin changed their mind, I would support deletion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the BLP is a social contract argument, I've done the best I can responding to any feedback I've recieved about the article. I don't think the above summary is nessecarily a fair evaluation of my actions. But if Tamzin wants the article deleted, I'm not going to insist it stays. BLPREQUESTDELETE applies to non-public figures and I wouldn't say Tamzin is one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But I do want to defend myself here. I encourage people to look at the edit history and the talk page. I don't think it's navel gazing (I think this biography would actually not be controversial at all if it wasn't about a Wikipedian). I don't think one person making some edits (most of which were reverted by various editors) means an article shouldn't exist. I don't think the article as a whole is a result of poor editing. I don't think I'm not capable of editing BLPs properly. I saw an article that I thought was missing an entry on List of Wikipedia people, asked the biography subject if they were against its creation (they said they were neutral about it), and thought that I was acting with due diligence every step of the way. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that you acted entirely in good faith, and with good intentions. Alas, good intentions can have unintended consequences, but that doesn't make them bad. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this biography wouldn't exist if it weren't about a Wikipedian, which is the problem, and why I call it navel gazing. If this were any other person in the equivalent position of doing something mildly newsworthy as a child, and then having a separate temporary controversy about them on a website, we would never have written this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The way I was approaching it, it was someone does something very newsworthy as a child and then they become a prominent valued volunteer as an adult, with a somewhat temporary controversy also receiving news coverage. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I do not regard it as navel gazing by you. But I see the general phenomenon of articles about our editors as being prone to navel gazing, unless the person is indisputably notable for unrelated reasons. In my opinion, the interview as a child is WP:BLP1E. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I indicated on the talk page my assessment of sourcing basically matches Generalissima. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note per this comment (and perhaps more to come) the subject of the article is requesting deletion which will matter for possible closing of this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima: You beat me to this nomination by about 15 minutes. Would you mind if I make this a conomination? A bit unusual for AfD, I know, but my reasoning is somewhat different from yours. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: Yeah, go ahead! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh, dear, this is awkward. First of all, it looks to me, based on what Tamzin just posted here, like this is a situation of borderline notability, where the page subject would prefer deletion, and per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, I would want to honor that wish. And also, I do think that this is somewhere between borderline notability, and not notable (yet). I'm not seeing enough independent coverage indicating sustained interest, and too much of the rationale for having such a page is Wikipedia inside baseball. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Their main claim to fame is literally interviewing a previous president of the United States when they were a child. There are multiple reliable sources that go into detail about that. Anyways, this article has existed a day and the whole thing has been way more messier than I was expecting. I thought I'd write the article, people would question it at first before they saw the sources, and then everything would work out fine. I was not expecting a flurry of edits everywhere, to be similatenously accused of being biased for and against the subject, or for anyone to feel like I'm not responding quickly enough or don't understand BLP. [1] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Navel gazing articles about Wikipedia and Wikipedians are always dubious in my opinion, and since the subject has noted we can't seem to even get this one correct for some reason, we should just not have it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find the WP:GNG keep arguments to be persuasive, but given this is a WP:BLP article about a non-public figure, if the subject of article requests a deletion, we should honor that, unless there are public-interest arguments for keeping it. We do not HAVE to have an article on everything that meets GNG, and especially not for BLPs. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
No her userpage Yes Yes ✘ No
Yes Yes No Quoting her about her father's death; not any SIGCOV actually about her. ✘ No
Yes Yes hasn't ever been discussed, but don't see a reason to doubt it. Yes ✔ Yes
Yes ~ While NY Post is unreliable, to quote Tamzin on the talk page: The Post is generally unreliable, but I'd argue this interview is situationally reliable, given that it's an interview and that it predates the Post's real nosedive reliabilitywise. I certainly don't dispute anything I'm quoted as saying in it. Yes ~ Partial
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes No Free Press is unreliable No Just a namedrop ✘ No
Yes Yes No Just quoting her ✘ No
Yes Yes No Just a quote ✘ No
Yes Yes No Just quoting him as one of the many people waiting for the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Never done one of these things before; feel free to criticize as appropriate. Overall, this may squeak by GNG, but it is borderline and the subject requests deletion. Weak delete. charlotte 👸♥ 03:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article, Keep the person. (per Tamzin and WP:HARM and Carrite). No suitable redirect target. Polygnotus (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. After reviewing the sources, notability seems to be borderline so given the request, I support deletion. I don't believe a redirect is necessary. I also agree with PMC that this biography wouldn't exist if it weren't about a Wikipedian. Finally, I appreciate the good faith efforts of Clovermoss on this article. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Bush anecdote is the kind of feel-good / human interest story we usually dismiss when evaluating evidence of notability. The rest is Wikipedia-focused, using them as an example, or mere mentions. In my judgement, GNG is not met, and the subject has requested deletion, a request we usually honour in cases of borderline notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW close as Delete. This article was created in good faith by an excellent editor, but notability is clearly doubtful, the BLP subject has requested deletion, the article-creator has stated that based on that she is okay with deletion, and the discussion has (not by fault of any particular person) become an unhealthy spectacle. That the ultimate result of the AfD will be Delete has become entirely clear, and no useful purpose will be served by leaving it open for another six days. I will add that we should extend this sort of consideration to any borderline-notable BLP subject in like circumstances. Many of us must admit to ourselves that we focused on this particular AfD because of its subject's role as a Wikipedian, and should make a point of seeking to rapidly resolve similar cases involving other BLPs as well. Everyone involved here should introspect about how a similar situation would be perceived by a BLP subject who, unlike those here, is unfamiliar with how the sausage here is made. I refrain from SNOW-closing this AfD and deleting the article myself only because I might be perceived as having some sort of COI given the pending AfD on my own article, although the circumstances there are somewhat different, and I will comment there separately later today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at these sources, the notability is just not there. The sources that are in-depth are so far from being notability-establishing. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:GNG is a presumption, not a suicide pact. The notability isn't there, as Zanahary says.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 08:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable topic. Navel-gazing has been (correctly imo) mentioned, also per WP:ANYBIO failure. Serial (speculates here) 10:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I consider the 2004 articles as not contributing to GNG per Yngvadottir. Overall, not a GNG pass, and the topic doesn't meet any relevant SNG criteria. The Slate article speaks for itself and so do our administrative pages. Attempting to provide some kind of summary on top in the form of an encyclopedic article simply doesn't produce a thing worth reading. The collation of information from the existing usable sources does not produce a meaningful, educationally impactful whole. The article is essentially a story about the RfA that had a record number of participants with some background information that doesn't meaningfully connect with the story. The way the story is told is hard to process as the summarization here does not help. A member of our general readership probably just needs to read the Slate article to get it.—Alalch E. 12:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm noting that it's possible to redirect to Wikipedia administrators#Requests for adminship. Pinging User:Hey man im josh who said above: If this was nominated at RfD it would likely end up being deleted—probably not if this were the target. —Alalch E. 12:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed with concerns above of GNG not being met. Biographies about people who have become mildly famous due to their hobbies rather than occupational work is always a hard sell.
    I don't think the complaints in the (co-)nomination regarding the editing of the article are fair, as the supposed inaccuracies were more like disagreements with phrasing which the subject feels is unfair to them, rather than clear factual errors. – SD0001 (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. This makes some of the other concerns not so relevant. I'll post a meta-comment about this at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest, Rjjiii (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW delete basically per Newyorkbrad. The outcome of this discussion is clear and I think it's in everyone's best interest that this be closed ASAP. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 16:04, 1 February 2025 (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.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamzin_Hadasa_Kelly
No tags for this post.