Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabrielle Diana


 * 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. WP:HEY applies. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Gabrielle Diana

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No notability; explains role in a company that has no further information and no longer exists. Status as an influencer/singer rather suspect. Written like self-promotion. W3985abp (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Changed my mind to delete. Although it cites many sources, most of them are unreliable. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 15:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is a very bad nomination: The nominator has only made two edits and they are both on this article. You should have scammed this article before nominating it. This article passes N that you said it didn’t pass. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 14:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete the article lacks the level of sourcing needed to justify a biography of a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I will AGF on the nomination, although it does strike me as rather strange that the nominator is so familiar with WP policy. I can see only one in-depth article on the subject——and it's more or less a listicle without biographical information. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I'd love to vote keep and if anyone can show me sources that are reliable and intellectually independent that give them significant in-depth coverage I will change my vote. A WP:BEFORE doesn't revel much. I see most of the sources listed for the article are social media sites. I share in the beauty of people expressing themselves but identifying as a particular sexual orientation or gender does not make you notable. Being an activist for said and other points of view/preferences does not inherently make one notable. Even being a singer/song writer/player of instruments does not automatically make you notable. As is, the subject fails basic notability criteria. -- A Rose Wolf  18:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep She is mentioned in people magazine's website. https://people.com/celebrity/mom-surprises-trans-daughter-with-sweet-surprise-about-name-change/ Far more coverage is already in the article. https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2015/11/02/6-reasons-why-16-teen-year-old-gabrielle-gladu-gives-hope-trans-teens gives here what no one can deny is significant coverage.  https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/31/transgender-teen-gabrielle-diana_n_9582652.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/transgender-people-are-sharing-inspiring-photos-how-they-have-physically-changed-momentsintransition-a6968211.html have bits mentioning her and quoting her, both of these major newspapers.  http://www.mtv.com/news/2545503/what-i-want-you-to-know-during-transgender-awareness-week/ considers here a notable person to speak on the trans issue.  http://www.mtv.com/news/2288497/mom-trans-daughter-gift/ gives a lot of coverage to the birthday cake thing which other sources mentioned as well.   D r e a m Focus  20:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Assessment of the sources above, not whether the subject received significant coverage in the source: People Magazine is considered a reliable source. Huffington Post received mixed reviews. Anything non-political is considered reliable. Anything political should be scrutinized. Anything written by a contributor, mostly before 2018, is considered self-published. Independent is considered reliable. Mtv has no rating and has not been assessed. It should be used only under extreme scrutiny. As to significant coverage, the People article is the best example of this. The Huffington Post and Independent articles would be considered primary sources as the majority of what is written was quotes by the subject similar to an interview. Mtv does consider her a notable person because of her activism. These sources are filled with personal quotes mixed with biographical details on her with the last source being mostly about the birthday cake. -- A Rose Wolf  21:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  16:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment She also came up in a Daily Mail "article" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3255536/You-Gabrielle-Heartwarming-moment-mother-surprised-16-year-old-transgender-daughter-legal-change-iced-chocolate-cake.html which seems to be a rehashing of a buzzfeed post. Not sure this is really notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wikipedia policy (WP:DAILYMAIL) states that The Daily Mail is not a reliable source and generally unreliable, its use as a reference is generally prohibited. the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. ExRat (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell based on the assessment made according to news sources Wikipedia has discussed it would depend mostly on how mtv news is seen. Would that be considered reliable though it hasn't been discussed or assessed for its news reliability? I don't know their editorial process at mtv or the level of oversight. And if so, would we consider what is said in those articles as primary or secondary? Also, is there enough information that may be independent to call it significant coverage? -- A Rose Wolf  15:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Userfy. It's borderline WP:TNT. I started to work on it, and have given up. I think she is notable based on WP:SIGCOV, but the article needs a lot of work, more than I can handle. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tried to bring the article up to WP standards as much as possible, but am still on the fence. She does get credit for creating a hashtag, and being named The Advocate's "25 trans pioneers of 2015." The rest of the coverage is either A. her social media; or B. Her mother giving her a cake for her name change/transition. Per HEY, do you mind looking again and seeing what you think and if that influences your !vote? Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Draftify . There might be something here, but it needs a lot of work. There’s a ton of OR/autobio without proper attribution. I’ll try to clean it up a bit, but some sections just need gutting. —Kbabej (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, being impressed by the group effort to remove all the unreliable sources and unsupported claims, and to comply with the manual of style. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. After working on the article, I think it meets notability requirements. There's coverage from Gay Star News, The Advocate, and Out Magazine. She's created a popular hashtag on Twitter and been included in The Advocates "25 trans pioneers of 2015." --Kbabej (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * None of which are considered reliable independent sources. What is their editorial process? How much of the information included in these articles is sourced directly back to the subject which would make it primary? Improvement has been made but what can we base reliability on? A lot of these stories repeat the same information too. That would be considered a single source according to the guideline for notability. I want the article to remain but it needs to be concrete and irrefutable that she is notable and passes the guideline. -- A Rose Wolf  17:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting none of the sources are reliable independent sources? GSN, Out, and The Advocate are all well known, notable, and reliable publications. —Kbabej (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Columbia Journalism Review appears to treat The Advocate, Out, and NewNowNext as legitimate news outlets, e.g. ‘No one else is going to speak for us’: LGBTQ media rise in age of Trump (CJR, 2017) Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY, and I just added The Independent source referenced above to the article, which also appears to be providing commentary on Gladu's activism, e.g. "Transgender rights have come to mainstream attention in recent years, thanks to the work of campaigners as well as celebrities..." Beccaynr (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I also found and added information from Cosmopolitan magazine that provides commentary on Gladu's #MomentsInTransition activism, and I also added a reference to a report from Buzzfeed News about it. Beccaynr (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete the article does not have enough reliable sourcing to support a stand-alone page for this BLP. Kolma8 (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - pretty much per . I don't want to pour cold water on any of the effort that has gone in to improve the article, or indeed on Gabrielle Diana generally (without wishing to play the "all my friends are" card, a close friend of mine is transgender) but on a sensitive BLP like this we must make absolutely sure we get the article completely and utterly right using the highest quality source material that's available. And I just don't see that in the article at this time - we really need to get strong coverage from major news outlets. Did she stand up and object to Trump's transgender military ban and was it covered in national broadsheet papers? If not, why not? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment After some additional research, I found a 2016 New York Times article that includes a profile of Gladu and verifies details in the article that are independent of her hashtag activism and the cake publicity. Beccaynr (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Three different reliable sources( Buzzfeed news, the independent, and people), and numerous other sources are enough to meet notability here.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus.
 * Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC) * Keep enough coverage. Meets WP:GNG Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Persistent, multi-year coverage of this transgender activist is found in multiple reliable sources and documents multiple events. Clearly meets WP:GNG. This is a WP:HEY situation, I think. For the record, this is exactly the situation where some source-hunting before delete !votes is useful, because it would suck to see more (sometimes generally lacking) coverage of lgbtq minorities removed before said articles get a chance to be improved. BlackholeWA (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2021 (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.