Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitchy Resting Face


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Bitchy Resting Face

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only references are an online editorial from The Guardian and an article from The Daily Mail (the latter of which being unarguably an unreliable source). ❤ Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia isn't KnowYourMeme.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 14:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Recentism.Deb (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Unfunny and a BLP violation waiting to happen; sources are junk fluff of the fleeting variety.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. That it is a subject in popular culture is irrelevant. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Echo points as made by Candleabracadabra above. Sources are reputable UK newspapers and appeared in actual print. I suspect there will be many people (such as myself!) who wonder what "BRF" is, and will find it useful to read this article.  It's also easy to find many sources of a similar quality.  In response to concerns about "recentism", my reading of Wikipedia's guidance is that recentism has problems and benefits, and isn't an automatic reason to delete a page.  (Notability can be an issue, but I think that in this case here.)  I don't agree with the view that this article violates WP:WWIN.  I don't think "unfunny" is a real Wikipedia policy objection, and surely it's better to deal with any BLP violations if and when they appear?  Feel free to disagree and discuss.  The Parson's Cat (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this a condition known to the medical community and diagnosed by a doctor (at least one that doesn't want to risk being taken to the cleaners in a defamation suit by saying the name of the 'condition')? Not that I know of. And again, I stand by my argument that the sources are fluff; the Daily Mail piece is pretty much the most lazy excuse for a story I've read; all they did was go through their photo wires, find bad pictures, roll out some 'yeah I can see that text' and they have a story. I cannot read the medical journal story so I have no way to know what that said, and I see that some wool-pulling is being pulled by switching the link originally associated with Today to a shared story with CNBC.com; major problems still exist with that source and the writing remains fluff. I stand by my rationale that the sources need major improvement, or we need to connect this with a medical term that is a whole lot more neutral.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment thanks, Nate. The story linked to has always been associated with CNBC: you can check the history if you need to.  (i originally included both CNBC and TODAY.com in the reference text, but when I was checking up on references, it became clear that CNBC was the original and only publisher of the press story; TODAY.com is a television show owned by the same news organisation, and the story was written by one of their journalists.)  I don't like the Daily Mail article either, and I wouldn't dream of supporting an argument based on editorial opinion, but I do feel that it is a valid source where reporting of objective fact is concerned. I treat the Guardian - which I do like - in exactly the same way.  The nursing journal you can't access includes a report on an aesthetics conference, and makes an explicit reference to BRF - almost certainly tongue-in-cheek, but a reference nonetheless.  Although it is clear that some plastic surgeons are using the term - and more than one the source shows that - that's hardly the point.   BRF is not a medical condition: rather, it's a satirical observation on the way our culture places unreasonable focus on women's appearance.   I'm sure your concern is to stop Wikipedia carrying bad medical content: I feel that BRF is important in a cultural content.  I'm editing in good faith, and I hope you can see that even if you disagree.  The Parson's Cat (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2013 (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.