Talk:Ashley Biden

Legal Issues - Undue weight
I don't have time to fix it right now, but it's clear the section "legal issues" places undue emphasis on petty legal infractions participated in by the subject. Her friend threw an empty soft drink can at someone when she was in her early 20s? I've never seen another article lay out someone's arrest record like this, unless they are famous for being a murderer. I had to double-check that I was on Wikipedia.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the section, including the bit on her journal being stole. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Besides being the President's daughter, the journal is the only notable thing about her. Red Slapper (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "The only notable thing about her"? What about the fashion company she founded (and debuted at New York Fashion Week)? What about her role as the executive director of the Delaware Center for Justice? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What about that fashion company? Is it notable in any way? Would you have even heard about it if she was not the president's or VP's daughter? People start small businesses all the time - more than a million a year in the US alone. That is not notable. Red Slapper (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This conversation is ridiculous. Her fashion company, which is also philanthropic, was featured in Vogue and made a debut at NYFW. Not something other small businesses do. Your opinion on her accomplishments/achievements does not determine notability. WP:Notability does. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The info about her fashion company is in the article. Now apply the same standards to the info about her diary. Red Slapper (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not the one who removed the legal issues section. I am the original author of this article and wrote that section. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright then. And I restored it. I still think the other stuff is not notable, as others did when you first wrote the article. Red Slapper (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That someone is notable because their journal was stolen is the most ridiculous thing I've read in weeks. The article looks like a lot of improvements have been made since I was here last, though... apparently after someone made an entire separate article on her diary. Amusing. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Ive removed the other irrelevant details on crimes that were supposedly caught on video but never charged much less never having am conviction. Biden may have a father and mother covered by WP:BLPPUBLIC, but she is not, and WP:BLPCRIME would say that these events are not part of her notability and as such should not be covered here.  nableezy  - 00:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, when something is removed on BLP grounds it stays out until there is a consensus for it. You should know that by now Im sure. Kindly self-revert, and feel free to start an RFC.  nableezy  - 01:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure it warrants inclusion, but I think it is important to get a consensus on this. I don’t think this is the kind of defamatory or controversial material that needs to be removed immediately from a BLP. Thriley (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thriley, please see WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. I think it merits removal under WP:BLPCRIME, which means you must gain consensus for its reinsertion. Again, please self-revert.  nableezy  - 02:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You reinserted what even the NY Post declined to run with, and because it cannot use the NY Post you use the Hindustan Times (why do we need an Indian paper for this story????) that says reportedly trying to hawk a video that purportedly shows the 27-year-old. The second cited source doesnt even mention this event at all! And finally the Vanity Fair piece, which never once actually says the video shows anything, just repeats that it is rumoured to possibly do so. And you think that is appropriate for a BLP?  nableezy  - 02:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actuall, Im removing that part as a straightforward blp violation.  nableezy  - 02:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, for the next part, we are not only including Biden being arrested for "verbally intimidated" an officer, but we are also naming two entirely non-notable individuals. How is that acceptable per WP:BLPCRIME? Is there any evidence of her having been convicted of any charge? Did it even go to trial? Why are we naming two non-notable individuals here? Ill give yyou a bit to respond but I also intend to again remove this if you do not self revert the paragraph on the Chicago arrest.  nableezy  - 02:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And Ive removed that as well, if youd like to open an RFC please feel free, but absent a consensus here or at BLPN please do not restore it. Youll note I dont have a problem with how the diary is covered now, but this was garbage.  nableezy  - 04:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you made the right call. Best, Thriley (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)