Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Shrier

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 as an article about her book (Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters) which according to this discussion is the notable topic here. If that is not done, the article can be renominated. Sandstein 21:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Shrier[edit]

[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)

Reasons for listing:

The article does not appear to independently establish notability of the subject to create a WP:BLP.
The sole claim to notability appears to be controversy surrounding the publication of the book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters; as such, the policy Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event applies. "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person."

While there may eventually be enough WP:RS coverage regarding the book and the book's controversy, right now there are very few viable sources for even that.IHateAccounts (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep I dont agree that all sources are surrounding the book and that this is about an event. She also has in depth coverage about her and discussions of the "transgender" subject. There are sources from WSJ and Chicago Tribune, which are very credible publications. It pass [WP:GNG]]. Peter303x (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify which specific sources you believe pass WP:RS? One of the Wall Street Journal articles only mentions her in passing as having once been interviewed on Joe Rogan's podcast, the other is a non-WP:RS opinion column. Likewise, the Chicago Tribune article is an opinion column and does not pass WP:RS. None of these three establish notability. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book is notable due to the significant in depth coverage of it in reliable sources and therefore we might as well have the biography as that is a superior reader experience to just having an article about the book. "one event" doesn't apply to notable books. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Philafrenzy: WP:Notability is not inherited.
We have a notability guideline for authors called WP:AUTHOR, and the standard that subjects have to meet is: The person has created... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work... or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. [emphasis added]
Shrier clearly does not meet that standard, and it can be seen because we have not been shown any evidence of WP:LASTING coverage of the book where we can definitively say it is significant or well known (a higher standard than notable). (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: In order to address your claims that even "the book is notable due to the significant in depth coverage of it in reliable sources", we need you to indicate which sources you believe those are. Peter303x was good enough to indicate their belief that the WSJ and Chicago Tribune sources qualified above, and I have addressed those directly. Can you please provide the sources you believe qualify, so that these can be checked? IHateAccounts (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shrier is only notable for this book, and there are not enough WP:RS to discuss her without introducing a bias. Bravetheif (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into an article about the book. The book has received a lot of coverage and debate, and a number of the references in the article specifically mention Shrier in the headline (The Sunday Times, Media Matters for America, The Orion, Chicago Tribune). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The book is clearly notable, with coverage from Gay City News, The Christian Post, Chicago Tribune and Psychology Today. There is no currently existing article about the book, so we can't merge it, but if people want to rename & shift the article's focus to be about the book, I think that would be fine. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and shift topic to book. Most of the sourcing is primarily about the book, not about Shrier, and WP:BLP1E strongly suggests that we should not focus on Shrier when she is only notable for publishing a notable book. Gbear605 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and restructure to be about the book. I don't see that the author meets the notability standard at all. Right now this is an article about a book trying to cram itself into a BLP framework. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Under WP:AUTHOR (which includes journalists) a person is likely to be notable if they have created a "significant or well-known work" which this seems to be as there is consensus the book is notable, and it has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" which her book has. The public will not understand how a book can be notable but not its author - particularly where it is so clearly aligned with her personal views - and will want to learn more about the author. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Why does something controversial need to be deleted? Another indication of the insanity of our times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.184.15.46 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't about whether or not to talk about it but whether to move it into a separate article for the book. ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Create an article for the book, return for discussion afterwards - the book is clearly notable, creating an article for it first and then AfDing the BLP would give a clear basis to understand what else is mentioned in RSes besides the book. ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book is notable for its extreme controversy. But it isn't a significant monument; it's having a moment. She isn't really notable outside of the one book (on which an article should probably be written). This is at best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Some of the sources cited are articles of her own authorship even! FalconK (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2020 (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.