Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titania McGrath

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. Most of the keep arguments were not based on WP:PAG and were instead relying on CRYSTALBALLING with respect to possible future events. I found one in particular to be quite rude. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Titania McGrath

[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)

~~WP:BLP1E~~Whatever the blp1e equivalent is for parody accounts, with questionable coverage, at best. Praxidicae (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added several more references which were easy to find. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Praxidicae

easy to find ≠ suitable sources to establish notability

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath	WP:TWITTER	~ Reliable for WP:PRIMARY		✘ No
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/bougie-london-literary-woman-twitter-account-a3998071.html		Evening Standard is a tabloid	Even if it were reliable, it's not in-depth coverage of her	✘ No
https://iea.org.uk/twitters-latest-suspension-proves-motive-doesnt-matter-anymore/	?	It's a blog	~ WP:SIGCOV isn't achieved by an MOS:OPED in a blog	✘ No
https://spectator.us/welcome-back-titania-mcgrath/		This piece in particular definitely isn't and the US version of The Spectator clearly doesn't have the same level of editorial oversight or quality control, considering it was written by this guy	I don't see how we can achieve WP:SIGCOV while not being truly WP:RS	✘ No
https://quillette.com/2018/12/13/i-now-understand-how-nelson-mandela-felt/	It's written entirely by her	? Even if it's sometimes reliable, they don't differentiate between user submissions or editorial staff.	Written by her.	✘ No
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/why-im-a-fan-of-titania-mcgrath/		~ This is a weekly blog by Charles Moore so somewhat reliable but still WP:NEWSBLOG	I would not consider a handful of sentences in a weekly guest column to be in depth coverage, especially considering this is WP:BLP1E	✘ No
https://www.littlebrown.co.uk/books/detail.page?isbn=9781472130839		~ Possibly, for WP:PRIMARY	WP:SPS	✘ 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}}.

Just because her name exists in places on the internet or elsewhere, doesn't mean she has the required significant, independent, in-depth and reliable coverage required for an article. Praxidicae (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Charles Moore piece is not in fact a blog but a magazine article: the blog link is more convenient than the article as it is not paywalled, but the article can be found at [1]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gained significant attention on social media. --- Evans1982 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Attention on social media" is not acceptable, you must produce an RS per WP:GNG of whe she is the main subject. Britishfinance (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. There are some blogs and opinion pieces, but no actual journalism. The book she claims to have written has not been published yet, so WP:NAUTHOR doesn't apply. Bradv🍁 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen her on Twitter, and blocked her because I find her parody tweets annoying. What I don't see is significant coverage of her. I think this is WP:TOOSOON, my crystal ball expects that there will be enough coverage by the end of the year, but there isn't such coverage right now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- and fight lazy and uninformed deletionism everywhere it spreads. The people posting delete clearly did not bother to do so much as a Google search before they asserted that there were no RS sources for her. And the one that did proceeded to whittle away at the sources they found with irrelevant objections that are not germane to a deletion decision. Even worse, one even point blank stated their bias against her. (And the fact that the book hasn't been released yet is a shibboleth for notability? So what that implies is that after the book is released, a magic event will occur that will suddenly make her notable. What?) Come on, seriously Wikipedia. Come on. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 03:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

after the book is released, a magic event will occur that will suddenly make her notable - YES! That "magic event" is substantial coverage of her in independent sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to address the incivility in your comment but calling my well reasoned and cited assessment of the sources "irrelevant and not germane to a deletion discussion" is inherently untrue. If she becomes notable in the future, we can restore the article but we can't just assume she will when there is a dearth of actual, substantial coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also I removed your comments from within mine - you're welcome to re-add them as your own table or comments but please do not edit mine. Praxidicae (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "fight lazy and uninformed deletionism everywhere it spreads". I wish all AfDs had a table like Praxidicae's above. That is an inappropriate statement, and even more so when you produce not a single RS per WP:GNG of whe she is the main subject? Britishfinance (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page has potential for growth. If she fails to become widely noticeable by the time her book is published, we can safely delete her page. If she does achieve that status, then the public will likely want to learn more about her. In that case, Wikipedia would be ready to serve. Nerd271 (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "potential for growth" is not acceptable (WP:TOOSOON); you must produce an RS per WP:GNG of whe she is the main subject. Britishfinance (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can I remind editors that Titania McGrath is a fictitious character, and so arguments based on BLP policy, such as WP:BLP1E need to be applied with caution. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Is she? I thought she was a satirical persona of a real-life person, possibly of the same name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She's every bit as real as Godfrey Elfwick. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Praxidicae. Analysis confirms the subject does not meet WP:GNG. I could not find a solid quality RS where she was the main subject of the article/piece. The references are either from junk sources, or mention her in passing and/ or with others. This is a "contrived" case that only proves existence, but not notability. Twitter followers (as youtube-hits) are junk and fake, and are not part of WP:GNG for a reason (the penny will drop on why people with seemingly huge twitter/youtube followings who are ghosts even the 2nd tier media). None of the arguments for "keep" above produce a single solid RS on this subject except to non-WP policy arguments on her "popularity on twitter" or potential "future" notability. Britishfinance (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Praxidicae. Subject does not meet WP:GNG and the sources used are not reliable per WP:RS. Most are questionable and self-published sources and inherently unreliable. Editors citing "potential" for growth plainly do not understand WP:TOOSOON. W C M_email 12:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to the argument that WP:TOOSOON is the right approach here, given that relatively few new sources have turned up since the ones I found at the start. What's causing difficulty here is the rather strident tone of some of the delete !votes, with overtones of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, leading to some equally unfortunate replies. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer. Few of the Keep arguements have provided any new RS or been able to challenge/refute Praxidicae's analysis. Britishfinance (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as WP:TOOSOON but the Evening Standard is definitely a reliable source, its in tabloid format (as The Guardian is now) but the content is not tabloid content, its the leading evening newspaper in the UK and well respected Atlantic306 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2019 (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.