Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabitha Fringe Chase

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 . ✗plicit 23:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tabitha Fringe Chase[edit]

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

Tabitha Fringe Chase (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)

A FOIA request and passing mentions over a baggy pants debate don't seem to establish notability. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable "activist" with no sourcing found. The FOIA request isn't even linked, could be fake for all we know. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is real: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/spyfiles/georgia_foia.pdf CT55555(talk) 12:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was badly formatted, with most references presented as external links, some of them dead. I've fix most of that, more work is needed. This wasn't an easy !vote as she is mostly known for one thing and policy normally directs us away from biographies about people arrested but not charged. However, that policy stems from privacy concerns. As she has written about her arrest, clearly she doesn't seek privacy, in fact she is trying to draw attention to her arrest. Therefore, privacy concerns aside, is she notable enough? She is noted for two things, the FBI arrest and then protesting an underwear bar, so WP:BLP1E doesn't discount this as she is not low profile at all, and there are two events, even if one is minor. CT55555(talk) 13:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your cleanup work, but they still have to meet GNG. If you look at the attention she received for the second, the sources I saw literally just mention her name and that she was holding a sign, not SIGCOV. I also don't think the IWW sources are reliable. There's no evidence of fact checking or any editorial process-- it just seems like a blog to me. That leaves us with the Atlanta Progressive News, a reasonable source. I can't see one reliable source with significant coverage establishing notability, especially since there seem to have been absolutely no mentions of Chase that don't occur in 2005 or 2007. For notability to be established, I'd expect some coverage beyond the immediate aftermath of those two events. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that is fair. We could say she passes WP:BASIC but that would rely on IWW being a reliable source...I'm reconsidering.... CT55555(talk) 15:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: To say she passes WP:BASIC, we'd need to have at least one solid, reliable source with significant coverage. I just looked more carefully at https://archive.iww.org/node/1832/ which seems to share content published elsewhere, in this case from Creative Loafing, which seems not like a reliable source based on info I saw here: https://creativeloafing.com/about-us I therefore am about to withdraw my !keep vote. I'm probably a weak delete at this point, but prefer to consider for a bit before updating my !vote, I'm keen to see what others say. CT55555(talk) 16:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's been nothing since 2007, so no sustained coverage. We've settled the FOIA issue I mentioned in my first comment, but I'm still not seeing notability even with the points raised in the discussion above. Same !vote as above. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. There's no substantive "there" there, for this one. None of her varied professions make her notable. Nor does being questioned by the FBI for her plans to visit Iraq during the Iraq War. That would seem routine considering the chosen destination and the time period. The sourcing for that is an article written by Tabitha Chase herself. And so what if her file was obtained by the ACLU? Being one among other protestors regarding the proposed Atlanta City's regulations banning the display of underwear in public is meaningless. It just means she showed up to protest with a group of others. — Maile (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tabitha_Fringe_Chase&oldid=1152228080"