Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Teriba (2nd nomination)


 * 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. A clear consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Annie Teriba
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I wrote this article about a marginally notable activist known in part for a sex scandal. Several editors commented that it seemed like an attack piece, so I contacted the subject and asked her if she would like the article to be deleted. She said that she would, asserting that "almost all of it is false." Sammy1339 (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - subject is only really notable for a salacious allegation that is non-encyclopaedic, but is arguably newsworthy. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The fact that the article was created only after the allegations took place, and only attempted to establish notability after the event does make it look like an attack page, although given Sammy1339's nomination here and other comments I assume that all the edits were in good faith. For biographical articles such as this I believe that the subject's wishes can be taken into account although I cannot remember the exact policy for this. Shritwod (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. For borderline notable people previous discussion have leaned towards giving some weight to the wish of the subject. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Person is mentioned in books on the topic, and also in major UK publications (The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, HuffPo, IBTimes, OxStu, The Times, Washington Post, SkyNews, and a few dozen other fairly reliable sources without using any known for "celebrity gossip." Seems to meet notability as clearly as one might wish. Collect (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BLPCRIME states that For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.
 * I don't think the position of "Wadham College student union's People of Colour and Racial Equality Officer" makes her a "public figure". Were it not for the allegations, I very much doubt Annie Teriba would meet notability requirements. (Admittedly, the notability bar seems to have been lowered recently.) --Hillbillyholiday talk 17:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mostly negative piece on a very marginal BLP, potentially defamatory. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Subject has requested deletion.-- Auric    talk  22:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Teriba is only notable for the one thing, the rape scandal. FWIW, Teriba has issued statements that seem to acknowledge that she took part in non-consensual sex, but this may still have some potential BLP issues. This did gain quite a bit of coverage but not so much that it'd be considered enough to comfortably warrant a keep on that basis alone. It's possible that Teriba might gain more coverage over time, as this is exactly the sort of thing that's likely to get mentioned in academic texts at some point in time, but right now all we can judge it on is the existing coverage. If we had an article on controversy at Oxford then this would probably warrant inclusion there, but we lack that sort of article at this point in time (and crafting that sort of article would need a very careful touch). This could be userfied if anyone wants to do that, but offhand I'd say that this treads a thin line of notability. That Teriba wants the article gone gives it an extra bit of oomph. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete For the majority of the reasons noted above, the subject is lacking notability. Eagleash (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.