Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Taylor

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 no consensus. Just about every type of outcome has been suggested in this discussion. Most of the !votes are guideline/policy based. There is significant disagreement about whether or not source coverage about the subject fall into WP:BLP1E territory; some state this is so, others state that the subject has received coverage for additional matters, and some state that this is a borderline case. Many have suggested merging, along with several combinations of such (e.g. delete/merge, merge or delete, Keep or Merge and redirect, etc.). Ultimately, there is no consensus for any one particular action for the article. Further discussion can continue on its talk page. North America1000 00:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Taylor[edit]

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

Falls neatly under WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, as the overwhelming majority of the RS coverage 1) is about the recent controversy over Taylor's dismissal from Reddit and 2) came about in the past few days. It's very likely that the controversy as a whole is notable, and Taylor is only notable in relation to said controversy. A Google search for articles prior to June 30, 2015 comes up with this Adweek.com article, but not much else. A merge to Reddit#Controversies involving reddit, where the event is currently discussed, is my second preference to deletion. Mz7 (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Since this nomination began, the article has seen significant expansion with material that focuses mainly on Reddit. Given that, as well as the substance of the comments below, I now believe it makes a lot of sense to merge to Reddit rather than delete. For procedural reasons, this can be construed as a nomination withdrawal to join the merge camp. Since there are still outstanding "delete" !votes, this article shouldn't be speedily kept for this reason. Mz7 (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I am tempted to keep this around for now and wait a while to see if the chain of events escalates further, but I don't consider it likely that Taylor would ever meet the criteria for her own article. Richard Yetalk 09:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - changed to delete - off-site dox of wikipedia user - this is nasty and I didn't intend for that to happen. -- Callinus (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge -- Clearly the subject is notable only for one event. And I support User:Mz7's decision to merge -- Chamith (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — per comments by Aronzak. -Mardus (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC):[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a news archive, it's an encyclopedia. Her life up to the firing is absolutely not notable, and the firing itself is not notable. One could easily say "After an administrator was fired..." and it would make no difference to the understanding of the event. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sparkzilla, there is an Examiner.com article that goes into some detail about Taylor's work on Wikipedia on behalf of ID public relations prior to her hire by Reddit, but I understand that Examiner is not permitted as a reliable source, except in very specific circumstances. - 50.144.1.17 (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if not redirect - New York Times, BBC and Forbes have reported about this person. Over 40 sources from BEFORE and after the firing. She was the go to person for the media and reddit and was it's public face. As for BLP1E that might apply but there's no event article and she's not low profile due to her being interviewed by the media. Only thing i can see is a merge to the Reddit article, the sources don't justify deletion, i'd prefer a keep but redirect comes next. GuzzyG (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everything notable about the event should be merged to Reddit#IAmA and AMA. She didn't warrant a separate article when she ran Reddit AMA's so I'm not sure how suddenly not running them makes her notable. A simple test: does her replacement that was named warrant her own bio article, too? I am presuming no. --DHeyward (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, when the new york times, bbc and forbes report on you, it's not a leap as to why people would think you're notable. I wouldn't know the last bit, forbes didn't name a successor if they even have one yet. GuzzyG (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteen minutes is not a reason for something as invasive a biographical article especially for something that is generally considered negative such as being fired and the likelihood that the article would long outlive its use as a vehicle for protest. Fifteen years from now, Google's replacement will return her name and the associated firing. It's not fair to her to invade her privacy like this over a single event. Either reditt will be a commercial success (remembering will be that this was a good decision) or failure (there is no memory, ask any former Digg director of Communication). This is a close cousin to doxxing and while news will fade, WP articles stay. We don't even know why she was fired. And yes, a person has been named her interim replacement. It's the event and the reaction by Redittors that is notable, not the person. --DHeyward (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Notability alone is not the only affair here. While the subject is clearly cited/mentioned in many reliable sources it's all regarding a one notable event. -- Chamith (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article appears to be more about Reddit, entry appears to read like an advertisement about how the person was dismissed from the company. If she is notable, why wasn't there an entry about her before the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Givenunion (talk • contribs) 11:47, 5 July 2015‎
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - Please note that canvassing is taking place on Reddit to attempt to skew this discussion toward Keep. (Redditors probably don't realize that having a Wikipedia biography can be like a millstone around your career's neck.) - 50.144.1.17 (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for notifying about this. Here on Wikipedia we do not arrive at a final conclusion by counting votes in favor or something like that. Purpose of these discussions is to arrive at a consensus. Thus editors must provide a valid reasoning on their behalf to justify their opinion. -- Chamith (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not independently notable. Edwardx (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Reddit. The sources in which she's speaking on behalf of Reddit do not speak to her notability as they aren't about her. She's speaking as the corporate entity that is Reddit. As I don't think the recent events are notable as events, it seems like those too merit merging into the main Reddit article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Reddit#Controversies involving reddit. I'm a redditor, and as much as I'd like to see her become positively notable enough for an article she's not there yet. She's certainly notable enough to be mentioned in the Riddit article, but WP:BLP1E applies here. The Google appearances of her name before the controversy that I find all mention her as the spokesperson forwarding them information and nothing more. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for another month or so. If she's never heard of again, merge to Reddit Deku-shrub (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I came here looking for this article, so not sure why not have it? Merge later if she fades into obscurity. Nesnad (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prevaricate This article should be kept as long as it is interesting. Then a decision can be made. She may become famous for the thing she did which caused her to get the sack and is being kept a secret. QuentinUK (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On what policy, guideline, or precedent is this !vote based on? We don't keep articles on the hope that they will become sufficiently notable in the future--see WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Also see WP:ITSINTERESTING. Mz7 (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Reddit. If and when she becomes notable for something other than her work (and exit) from reddit, we can recreate the article.--Jorm (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the merge camp makes a lot of sense. Carrite (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She was basically the interface between the world of famous people and the people using /r/IAmA and helped organizing thousands of these interviews. Notability is clearly giving by both that and by news coverage of her. That might not be normal for PR people and I understand that, but it's different in this case. Once again, she helped organize a new form of interview / star-citizen communication that millions used. A removal would be an ignorant, subjective and consensus-neglecting decision. --Fixuture (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Three conditions have to be met for WP:BLP1E but it seems that this is not a low-profile individual and that their role is quite central to the stories now running. So, BLP1E does not apply. And there is international coverage by mainstream media - I was reading about this in The Guardian myself the other day - and so the topic is quite notable. Andrew D. (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. The sourcing is sketchy. Cla68 (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sketchy? The page currently has 42 sources which is comparable with say, Björn Borg's 45 - a famous person I just picked off the main page. Please justify this claim. Andrew D. (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Reddit#Controversies involving reddit, as the vast majority of the reliable, non-trivial (i.e. not one sentence with "reddit spokesperson Victoria Taylor said this") sources are about the recent incident, thus making her fall under WP:BLP1E. ansh666 23:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete Borderline notable for one event Chris Arnesen 23:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but has no problems with merging it into Reddit#Controversies involving reddit. The incident of which happened recently generated enough reliable sources (as shown on the article) to warrant a keep. Anarchyte 01:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (alternatively merge) I see the incident as being notable and the article as being well-written (if, indeed, AfD bait). ResMar 04:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect To Reddit, as per everyone else. There simply isn't enough material here to create a bio based on WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Reddit I think WP:BLP1E applies here. — regards, Revi 10:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect to Reddit Notable, but not enough for an independent article Rhoark (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Another week, another Reddit Sheisssturm; WP:BLP1E was made for this. For the same reason, I oppose the redirect. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Reddit#Controversies involving reddit 59.97.17.46 (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Reddit. 98.186.178.228 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Yes, there are many citations, but independent notability is not established. Jonathunder (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Reddit for now Apart from some of the current information, it's mostly for Reddit specifically the controversy and attention is imaginably received because of the media and social media expanding word of it. The article is neat and sourced but there's not much for solid independent notability at this time. It's worth noting I was almost going to be bold and redirect this myself based on the votes above. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the reddit controversies section if it exists. Also, Im sure there has been stealth canvassing going on at reddit, because they sure enjoy discussing these talk pages as they did here. It's a cause for concern because such an extensive website can influence the outcome of this poll. Buffaboy talk 05:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. There may be other stealth canvassing going on, but this Reddit post was noted earlier and in the {{not a ballot}} template. Mz7 (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but merge much of the content into Reddit. Most of the material in this article is about Reddit in general rather than Taylor specifically. However, looking closely at the sources, I think there is enough here to justify a Wikipedia biography, even if we exclude the coverage related to the recent controversy. Taylor should have a brief, perhaps stub-sized article here, while the content about the AMAs etc. belongs in the main Reddit article. (Disclosure: for what it's worth, I am not a redditor. Well, I have an account but I've only used it about twice.) Robofish (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — perhaps a borderline notability case before the recent events, but what's happened in the last week or so puts this article safely within the realm of notability, I think. It's true that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but this article isn't about an event and discusses more than just the recent firing. WP:BLP1E might apply if the article were solely about Victoria in light of her being fired, but it also describes the important role she held at Reddit prior to that happening. More content about her time at Reddit before being fired would definitely be a welcome addition, that said. dalahäst (let's talk!) 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if a majority of the content and the sources are truly about the role she held at Reddit more than they're about Reddit, with Taylor speaking in her role as a spokesperson. The latter case speaks to rather questionable independent notability, in my opinion. Mz7 (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Someone like her will probably get another high profile job, allowing this article to continue having readers and editors. I, for one, will certainly keep checking it until Victoria or someone else reveals what really happened when she was fired. Connor Behan (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - her paid editing is only recently coming to light, which is quite likely to be another incident. And she'd be notable as the person who helps--whoops, helped--put on AMAs, anyway. Red Slash 02:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentatively keep and see if this forms into a substantial, interesting article over the months ahead. No need to start rushing to judgement and nuking things from orbit before they have a chance to grow. This whole affair could turn into something interesting, but it might not. Let's just wait and see. Vranak (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, there's no rush to create an article either. A lot of nominations come through AfD where the subject could potentially become notable in the future, but at the moment, it's too soon. One thing we sometimes do as an alternative to deletion for those articles is to incubate the articles in the Drafts namespace. However, I have never seen any policy, guideline, or past precedent in which an article was kept solely on the grounds that the subject "could turn into something" notable. It's not our job to predict the future—see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. If and when Taylor becomes sufficiently independently notable for a standalone article in the future, I would support recreating the article. Mz7 (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I would counter them to say that in borderline cases, as this seems to be, it's a little mean, almost vindictive, to be destroying people's work if it happens to be well-researched, well-written, and reasonably interesting to a normal Wikipedia reader who doesn't have a vested interest in the matter. Again, this is a borderline case. The article as it stands isn't exactly the most riveting read, its big-picture importance does not jump out at you, but then again it isn't absurdly irrelevant to contemporary life either. In any event I would want to err on the side of not rudely deleting people's good faith efforts, that turns people off the entire project and may leave them a little bitter, or even a lot. Of course obvious contraventions of core Wikipedia policy must overrule this Carebear desire to protect people's esteem, I do understand that. But this is not an obvious case. Vranak (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I totally get where you're coming from. As a matter of fact, current Wikipedia deletion policy states that we do and should err on the side of "keep" in cases where there is a doubtful consensus to delete, and it also states that alternatives to deletion, like improving or merging, are preferable to deletion itself. I too hate to see time and effort go all the way down the drain—it's certainly not helpful for editor retention. (But it's important to remember that it's sometimes unavoidable if our goal is to create an encyclopedia.) And all of this is part of the reason why I changed my stance from delete to merge. By merging the article, we're not completely eliminating all of the content that took effort to create—we're just moving the content to somewhere where it's more suitable at the moment. The former page will still be accessible through the page history, so all authors will be credited properly. Mz7 (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are several sources discussing the subject before the particular incident. Esquivalience t 04:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to the incident list on Reddit per WP:BLP1E (even if strictly not 100% applicable here). While there are some sources discussing her before this incident, not enough to pass WP:GNG. Because of this, merging for now seems the best option - the article can always be recreated later if/when new sources emerge about her and not Reddit. Mdann52 (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge and redirect: The content is notable and has many sources, but this may be a case of WP:BLP1E. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep, too important of an event in Reddit's history that nearly 100% hinged on Victoria Taylor's persona in the unfolding of events of the AMAgeddon. Note: I do have a conflict of interest as an active participant ('Redditor') on the reddit site. 90.2.141.89 (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like it says on top of this page this is not a general vote. You must provide a valid argument that abides with Wikipedia's core content policies. As you said yourself that you have a conflict of interest I'm afraid your reasoning might not be considered as a valid a point when arriving at a consensus. -- Chamith (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge For the reasons given by the nominator. She is primary known for her role in the recent Reddit event. The only sources I could find were her in relation to Reddit. And most(if not all) of the references before July 2nd are not primarily about her, they only mention her or involve talking to her... about Reddit. And her involvement in those sources is expected of her job position. That's why I believe she is only notable for that one event. She's just an average employee of Reddit, it's not like her former co-workers of the same level also have articles.
Side note - If her article get's keep'd I think some things should be taken out that aren't necessary, and have the one of the founders of Reddit, Steve Huffman's, article expanded. Her article is longer than his puny eight sentence article, and something about that doesn't feel right to me. I might expand it in the future so if anyone wants to help me out let me know. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and a word about quality. There is a line in there which cites five articles claiming that Reddit mods closed shop in protest after her firing... each of which is a shining example of clickbait synthesis. I respect that we are working with what the media is reporting, but that's not even remotely accurate; any redditor-Wikipedian will be able to point to a number of threads in which moderators explain that, in the aftermath of Taylor's firing, they were forced to close for logistical reasons. So-called journalists have made it out to be a protest because people click titles like, "Reddit is tearing itself apart." If these are the "sources" we're citing now, I don't want to live on this planet anymore. --Moralis (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that wouldn't explain why the other subs shut themselves down as well though. Also note that there's no need to set a subreddit to private when AMAs can't work for logistical reasons: the mods could have just left it open as usual, simply suspending the AMAs. A more correct way to describe it would probably be "in protest and because they relied on Taylor for their functioning". If possible please edit these parts of the articles appropriately. --Fixuture (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per notable coverage of the event. CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Obvious BLP1E but the sources on her article can help expand Reddit so IMHO merging is better than deletion –Davey2010Talk 01:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom, and reasoning of others who have recommended delete -- Courtyarder (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reddit doen't catch my interest at all, but when sober news outlets are flooded with stories about the unexplained firing of a very depended-upon employee and the aftermath, I wanted to find out who she was and what were her particular attributes and skills that made her stand out from others in her position. Questions about notability might well have attached to Ellen Pao, actually. No Wikipedia article appeared for her until she filed the discrimination lawsuit which she lost. Given the reports of Taylor's talents and interpersonal skills, she is quite likely to appear in other roles before too long. NoOneAsked (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge and redirect. This article is borderline BLP1E, but the reason why I veer towards keep is the content is worth keeping and it would be both awkward and impossible to keep it all in the Reddit article, so let's use our common sense here. I have no dog in this fight - although I'm a reddit moderator I regarded the whole imbroglio with amused aloofness.--greenrd (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2015 (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/Victoria_Taylor&oldid=1140542853"