Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Vegan Teacher

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 keep. The nominator has already been notified of the problems with this nomination here. However, the problems are unlikely to affect the outcome considering the weight of arguments.

Some delete !votes are based on WP:BLP1E, but most seem to only address the first point of the policy, while the other two are mostly ignored. Failing any point in the policy means WP:BLP1E does not apply. Subsequently, less weight are given.

There is a consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E is not applicable.

WP:BIODEL is not eligible here as the subject has not requested deletion along with other unsatisfied criteria. However, editors should be careful with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV when editing the article. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That Vegan Teacher[edit]

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

That Vegan Teacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per the {{Notability}} tag added by LightningComplexFire, I am starting a deletion discussion. This is a procedural nomination, so for now I personally will not be making an argument. I have no prejudice against this discussion being closed as speedy keep if such a consensus arises. Linguist111talk 10:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Very few subs, only went famous because of her vegan extremism on TikTok, getting her banned. Didn't even hear of this woman until I discovered Rotten Websites Wiki. Delete. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not up to us to determine which reasons for going famous are valid enough for a wikipedia article. That's the whole point of using secondary sources. Given that she went viral more than once for inflammatory statements, she does pass WP:GNG, and WP:BLP1E while we're at it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. The only coverage in reliable sources relates directly to being banned from TikTok. No significant coverage or indication of lasting significance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish One of the sources was mistyped to be a duplicate– i changed it. There are sources not directly talking about the ban from WP:RS now.
  • Keep. Full disclosure: I wrote the article and moved it into the article space. this essay pretty clearly spells out that if there's more than one event worth mentioning, no matter the size, than the article is worth keeping. We have multiple reliable sources, at different times, showing that the things she says and does were notable before she was banned. I do realize one of the citations was an incorrect duplicate, that otherwise would have shown this, so my apologies. Going back to what BLP1E is not, since we have reliable sources (a few of which are listed here) for multiple different events, even if the most notable part of her career was the ban, this conclusively does not disqualify her page. As precedent for this, i'd like to point out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CallMeCarson (2nd nomination) (another article that i wrote), where the consensus was that WP:BLP1E is not meant to delete articles for content creators who have one event that's more notable than most others. This article passes WP:GNG. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the three criteria in WP:BLP1E (keeping in mind that all three must be failed to delete the article under BLP1E):
  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. We have more than one event covered by the reliable sources, in different contexts.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. I highly doubt that ThatVeganTeacher is going anywhere, any time soon. She'll have to rebuild a platform, but the stupid things she says are designed to go viral and cause outrage, as the coverage shows.
  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. This one doesn't really apply anymore, but i'll say that given the amount of context in the sources around the ban, that this counts as substantially well documented. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron, And I was going to say, no, we don't have more than one event covered by sources. She was banned by TikTok was the sole event covered. See WP:NOTNEWS 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LightningComplexFire, I made a mistake in drafting the article– one of the sources got duplicated over another. I corrected the mistake, showing that she was covered in perennially reliable sources at more than one point in time for her inflammatory statements. We can find other sources, too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure a response got deleted because of an edit conflict– could someone please restore that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron, I deleted it because I couldn't explain what I meant well. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LightningComplexFire, no problem. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron, Lemme re-word it. I was going to say, that in CallMeCarson's case, the article was kept because he was convicted of a crime, even if it's his only thing to fame. But in this case, being homophobic and racist isn't exactly a crime in Canada, but it's against the rules in TikTok, making her not convicted of a crime. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LightningComplexFire, I disagree with that characterization. The explanation AviationFreak laid out was that "Carson's coverage occurred because of his prior notability and status. If an "average joe" had been accused of sexual misconduct involving a minor, it would cause a small and local media blip." At its core, the argument was that Carson was notable for multiple events, even though one far overshadowed the rest. The other argument was "based on WP:IAR. Any subject who has millions of people actively interested in and aware of them is notable in my mind, regardless of their coverage in secondary reliable sources. I would say this of any subject with a following of millions, which is why I stated above that there should be a guideline dealing with internet notability." theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron, Also, I know sub count isn't a criteria of deletion, but many big YouTubers had their page deleted even if their sub count is in the millions, like SML. ~40K subs is WAY too small to warrant an article. But again, sub count isn't a deletion reason, WP:BLP1E is. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but she had millions of subscribers prior to her TikTok ban. We'll cut off this subthread here, anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just another social media personality with no sign of actual notability. Known for the one event of controversial videos and getting banned for them. Reywas92Talk 18:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92 The controversial videos and the resulting ban are two separate events– they may tie into the same person, or be a part of the same storyline, but they are distinct events. I don't understand how the reliable sources provided preclude notability, either. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This is just a person on social media that only went famous because she was wanting everyone to be vegan seems a little like promotion to me. SoyokoAnis 00:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SoyokoAnis you're welcome to edit the article if you don't believe it provides a neutral point of view. I don't think writing about someone notable should be avoided because we don't want to platform them– we're not giving her ideas any kind of undue traction. Does the article not pass WP:GNG? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron I don't really know much about her except for what's in the article. SoyokoAnis 03:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick google search brings up plenty of sources, and as theleekycauldron has pointed out, her ban got so much attention because of her immense popularity and infamy, if it was just an average joe it would not be receiving so much press. Pladica (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then this AfD would be removed. It's useless to have an AfD on this topic if there are notable sources on it. SoyokoAnis 03:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's where my head's been for quite a while– we do have reliable sources, quite a few listed at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I really haven't seen a solid argument for removal yet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, crystal clear WP:GNG pass, just from an extremely brief search, I found this and this in The Daily Dot, this in Insider, and this in Paper. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per reasons and sources indicated above. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet another "social media influencer" without any substantial notability; see WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. If she continues to be notable, then the article can be recreated, as it is, it is lacking in sources. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources provided by previous commentors (or a basic google news search) indicate passing GNG. WP:BLP1E does not apply because I have found several sources (ie. [1] and [2]) that demonstrate media coverage surrounding controversy over comments she made about organ donation. Samsmachado (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a draft - I recommend that we move this article to a draft for people to contribute to, including adding more reliable sources. Also, she was born on September 24, 1964. I know this because she was doxxed due to her actions, but I don’t know if Doxbin.org is a reliable source. Thanks in advance. 2600:1002:B106:6335:AD77:3F41:98AD:363F (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would imagine that unverified websites used to harass people are not a reliable source for anything, and though I don't know the US law that Wikipedia must abide by, there's no way a mainstream news website would source information in that way. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I wouldn't call this a core article or anything, but we have between September last year and now a spate of headlines about this woman's content, including two days ago. When people look for attention by being provocative it becomes very hard to write a balanced article while still being truthful, so I'm not exactly sure what the policy is on that matter. If all sources are negative, does that fail our WP:BLP responsibility to write fairly? Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That Vegan Teacher made the news again since this AfD began, in the Daily Dot. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though her article obviously won't be of top importance or anything like that, as pointed out, she has made headlines recently for yet another controversy. Plus, her infamy on various social media platforms and eventually being banned from TikTok garnered a lot of attention. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given all the notable media coverage. --hroest 22:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of media attention and recognition. This seems like a keeper. Stuhunter83 (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111talk 00:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think this needs to be relisted, consensus seems pretty unanimous for keep. Pladica (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. versacespacetalk to me 03:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough Vader13289 (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This woman only got popular only due to her being racist on her YouTube channel and promoting people to be vegan and force to quit their religion. No need for a Wikipedia article if this woman only got mass attention from other TikTokers hating on her. This is just like writing an entire book on someone because they said something down the street. Nsolm (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsolm: I've been responding to a lot of people on this AfD, and clearly I have a bias here, but I feel very strongly that it's not up to us to decide what reasons for popularity are valid. This article passes WP:GNG, and it therefore should be kept. Maybe this'll never be a featured article, but deleting it just because she got popular on a platform of hate isn't wikipedia's policy.theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am That Vegan Teacher. I just wanted to let you know that there are mistakes on this site. For example, I was born in Montreal, not Hamilton. I also want to make it clear that I am in NO WAY racist or homophobic and that it hurts me very much to have these rumours circulating. I also want you to know that the world has not seen the end of my activism. The only reason that you don't hear more from me is because of censorship, which is absolutely horrible. I also want you to know that I did not break a single law here in Canada and that it is horrible that people have spread so many lies about me. The original petition, for example, that 20,000 people signed, is filled with things that are not true. If anyone writing this wants to know more about my work history, feel free to ask me. I worked as a Registered Nurse for many years. I worked at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in NDG (Montreal), at Lakeshore General in Pointe-Claire, and also at Mc Master University hospital in Hamilton. For awhile I also worked at the VON in Beaconsfield. In case it is of interest to you, I got my gold level in Toastmasters International and I got kicked out of the club for speaking out against circumcision and carnism. The club did not want us to talk about "anything controvertial".In 2019, I became a grandmother. I am presently (March 11, 2021) on TikTok with another account called misskadieishere and still receiving death threats on a regular basis. We are considering moving because of them. Thank you for taking the time to read this and for considering veganism as a way to reduce so much animal suffering. Kadie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karen Elizabeth Diekmeyer (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Karen Elizabeth Diekmeyer: Hello there, That Vegan Teacher. I wrote the first draft of your article, and while anyone can edit Wikipedia, we do have some rules about how you can edit pages about yourself or people you're close to, which you can read about here. If you have primary sources, such as your website, that can verify things like name, date of birth, and city of birth, those would help us correct the record.
  • Second, the article doesn't say that you are racist or homophobic: it says that your comments have been characterized by other sources as racist and homophobic. I'm sure you'd agree with that statement, even if you disagree on whether the sources are accurate.
  • Third, the thing I think is most important about Wikipedia is that the barrier for inclusion is not truth. Rather, we add what can be verified by reliable, secondary sources. And for controversial articles like yours, we tend to attribute the source inline. You can read more about that here.
  • Fourth, we aren't discussing the general content of the article here. You can do that on the article's talk page. Here is where we discuss whether or not this article should be included in Wikipedia at all. If you have objections you'd like to raise, I or another editor would be happy to field them there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please move content discussion to the talk page, but I agree since this is a WP:BLP we have to careful when characterizing people or comments as racist/homophobic. --hroest 18:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment (vote is up top) this article needs a cleanup according to WP:BLP. --hroest 18:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep She seems notable. Most news seems to be of the TikTok ban, but her prior incident about donating organs got some coverage and there are a few other articles cited. I did not know about her until a few weeks ago, but doing a google search limited to stories before Decemeber 31, 2020 has a few reliable sources that might be enough to be notable even then. By now, she is clearly notable.20:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep There seems to be enough media coverage for a well-referenced article, though I second others' comments about the article needing a cleanup. Julius177 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Julius177: Although I agree that not much of a cleanup is needed, we should probably reword a few things in the article. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2021 (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/That_Vegan_Teacher&oldid=1012943765"