Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenique Frank

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glenique Frank

[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. A very minor "scandal", a non-notable transgender runner causing female finisher #7000 to be ranked female finisher #7001 instead. Fram (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely not a very minor scandal. Im working on the article and adding all the links on reliable, major international sources, which will demonstrate it is not a very minor scandal. Antonio The Major Scandal Martin (queeeee?) 12:39, 28 April, 2023 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NOTNEWS. That some "human interest" story is shared internationally doesn't suddenly make it a major scandal. Nothing of any significance happened, it's just somewhat unusual and fits the current vogue of reporting. Fram (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E, and half the sources are unreliable. --Pokelova (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as harassment of a non-notable private individual. I've tagged for speedy deletion. We do not stitch non-RS hit pieces together into "articles" like this. Beyond that there is BLP1E and every other reason why this is utterly unacceptable. The redirect from the deadname to the current name is pure vandalism and I have also put that up for CSD. Absolutely astonishing that an extremely longstanding editor could behave in such an obviously sanctionable manner. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet there is Bruce Jenner as a redirect...Antonio Mythical Martin (queeeee?) 14:50, 28 April, 2023 (UTC)

That's very different. Jenner was famous under her deadname. Frank was not. Our policies on this are very, very clear. We do not use deadnames except when people were notable under that deadname! --DanielRigal (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor news story, WP:BLP1E, poor sources. Not an attack page though, so I have declined the G10. —Kusma (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I am a little disappointed by that but I understand that you have to set a very high bar for this. What about the redirect though? That's got to go, right? DanielRigal (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the current "controversy", the person seems equally notable under both names. More precisely, not notable. But as they are still using the male name to sign up for further marathons, I can imagine an argument for keeping the redirect. I find discussing the redirect rather academic, though, unless we decide to keep this article. —Kusma (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the arguments above, particularly WP:BLP1E. Sources are the Daily Caller (deprecated), the Daily Express (generally considered unreliable), Fox News (no consensus) and NY Post (generally unreliable). Flip Format (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have also tagged as disputed. The article says 'In response, Frank wrote that "I'm not at an advantage since I have very low testosterone levels due to hormone replacement surgery".' and, guess what, that's not what Frank said at all! The source says '"I'm not at an advantage as I have very low testosterone level due to hormone replacement therapy," she wrote in reply to Yamauchi.'. We do not misquote people like that! --DanielRigal (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I commented out some transphobic wording that should never be used in wikivoice. Check the edit history if interested. DanielRigal (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Transphobic? I'm transgender! The only reason I never changed my user page name is, everyone knows me with that name.Antonio The new ms. Jeanette Martin (queeeee?) 15:29, 28 April, 2023 (UTC)

OK. I was not aware of that. Whatever your intentions, I still think that the wording I removed reads as if it was transphobic: use of "claimed",inappropriate and irrelevant mention of surgery. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an attack page and the subject is not notable -TenorTwelve (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One editor labeled this page as "harassment", another calls it "attack". Strongly doubt the page qualifies as either. But not adequately notable. Pete unseth (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is heavily weighted towards the "controversy", the biographical section is piddly, while the scandal section makes up the bulk of the article. It's likely not NPOV when a biography has more about "other stuff the person did" and only a few lines of biographical info. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we at WP:SNOW yet? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge could be merged into a small section about the marathon. Non-notable individual otherwise, finishing 7000th is nowhere near SPORTS or GNG. The "scandal" is the real story here, not the individual it's about. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
or !delete, I'm not fussed however it gets !decided. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Very definition of an attack page ('she caused a sports scandal'...who said this and why?) and the subject was among the top 6,200, not the top 100; this is only a 'controversy' to bored red-tops and really sad gamblers, not any normal person. Salt is for the protection of the BLP subject. Nate • (chatter) 20:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: how about if she keeps getting fame? If it was salted, what would we do then? Also, I didnt mean it as an attack page. I thought the subject would be a good way to keep my WIR work, that was my only intention, as a transgender woman myself. Antonio If you see my Bodyguard, Call me Jeanette! Martin (queeeee?) 21:22, 28 April, 2023 (UTC)

If that were to happen then somebody could request unprotection to make it editable again. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Textbook BLP1E. I also urge any patrolling admins to consider deleting early per WP:SNOW and BLP concerns. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 05:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP1E says it all. As a UK resident and London Marathon enthusiast I had never heard of this "scandal": very low impact. PamD 07:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Clearly a BLP1E and is not notable all. Also per WP:SNOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhardyfan08 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am disappointed to see that a lot of the people here on their comments did not apply one of the oldest of Wikipedia principles, which is to always assume good faith - by saying I wrote the article as a form of harassment, etc. Perhaps those people did not look at my 20 years track record at Wikipedia. I have never written an article to harass anyone. Antonio Tell me About it, Hot Stuff! Martin (queeeee?) 13:04, 30 April, 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that this can not have been pleasant but please understand that we can only judge this by what we see before us. We cannot know what your intentions are. What else were we to assume when we saw this article in the form it came to AfD? What else were we to assume when we saw that (now deleted) redirect? Did you really not understand what this looked like? Anyway, if it makes you feel any better, as the inaccurate quotation has been removed I'll take the disputed tag off. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I know what you can assume-good faith. Antonio Missis Corleone Martin (queeeee?) 22:44, 30 April, 2023 (UTC)

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.