Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case


 * 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. Although the numerical tally is about even between those who want to keep and those who want to delete this article, the arguments invoking NOTNEWS (and, to a lesser extent also BLP1E), in combination with BLP concerns lead me to close this as delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails to meet WP:SIGCOV/WP:EVENT. The overwhelming majority of coverage comes from opinion pieces, many of which acknowledge that the mainstream press hasn't really picked up this story. The story involves a WP:BLP1E individual, and the general consensus in discussions elsewhere has been that, at best, this story might warrant some minimal coverage at the page for the BC Human Rights Tribunal. Since the Tribunal has not yet handed down a decision, it seems implausible to think that we're going to be able to say anything about the "lasting import" of this case at the moment. Nblund talk 15:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Nblund talk 15:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Nblund talk 15:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.  Nblund talk 15:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep  I've heard of this story from national news coverage from the other side of the Atlantic.   Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete unless some impressive reliable sources appear. This may or may not become a case which established some legal precedent, but not yet as far as I can tell. Yes some newspapers have reprinted the chaff of hearsay and some rather ill advised quotes from the subject, but based on my observations of social media in the last week, any notoriety for the case is the Twitter enthusiasm for salacious reposts, click-bait, abusive imagery and the excuse to say something offensive or nasty about "balls" and trans women at the same time. This could as quickly evaporate next week and does not cross the threshold of GNG. The suggestion of inclusion in a larger article makes more sense to me, once the legal issues are better understood, if any. Based on the reported comment from the tribunal, that means waiting until November 2019 at the earliest, at which point this may come to naught. --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per Simonm223's observation of this being a BLP violation. --Fæ (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The coverage clearly includes Europe, North America, and Australia.  Clearly meets GNG.  It is false to argue that "the mainstream press hasn't really picked up this", when solid WP:RS such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation clearly cover the case.  The nom ought to be withdrawn with prejudice on that false assertion alone. XavierItzm (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The CBC covers a lot of events that do not have Wikipedia articles, or do you honestly believe Wikipedia must have an article for the event "At an airport in Rome recently, 336 Air Transat passengers sat in a plane on the tarmac for six hours"? This is not actually a legal case as far as I can tell. The tribunal has given no opinions and will not for a couple more months. Even when the tribunal gives a statement it may be to give no statement at all. That's not a good basis for Wikipedia notability for an event. --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * XavierItzm: not trying to be a jerk here, but do you see that blue link in my post? It leads you to an op-ed where the writer states "While the Yaniv case has been going on for a while now, you may not have heard much about it, as it has largely been covered by the rightwing press." Please read more carefully before throwing out accusations like that. Nblund talk 16:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that it has been covered by the right-wing press, and mostly as a vehicle for a whole pile of fabrication and transphobia, does not mean that it hasn't been covered by a less biased press too.
 * If you have a case that "WP should not be covering this" then make it, because GNG is unlikely to be a reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You should take that up with the Guardian. What it means is that there is a dearth of high quality sourcing and a wealth of crap. Where is that mainstream reliable coverage that adds up to more than a subsection within another article? We have a CBC article and a Globe and Mail article - but we have no decision, virtually none of the WP:INDEPTH coverage that could demonstrate a a lasting impact, and a bunch of op-eds that come pretty much exclusively from the same perspective. We're at stub-length and we're pretty much out of stuff to say. Nblund talk 16:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Take up what with the Guardian?
 * And are you now advocating that stub articles be deleted, simply for being stubs?  Especially not on a story that is still ongoing. The gay cake case took an awfully long time to come to a conclusion and even if this (as seeems likely) ends up merged as a section somewhere, that's still some distance from deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing that stub articles that can't be improved should be deleted or merged. We don't judge noteability based on expectations about the future, we judge them based on their current status. If you were to create a "lasting impact" subsection in this entry, what would you write? Nblund talk 17:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So if this article was to be merged somewhere, because this one issue was likely to be too insignificant, in which direction would you seek to merge it?  Transgender issues in Canada?   Transgender issues generally, vis a vis the trans / TERF conflict?  Or to Jessica Yaniv?  However that article would be heavily negative and the term "sexual predator" would certainly be on the table, as that's how they are seen and described by many commentators   (and yes, it's a chilly day in Hell today, as I'm agreeing with Miranda Yardley over anything).
 * That said, I think that long-term this is going to produce case law which is known to every Canadian law student within a few years, whichever way it goes. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The case was previously mentioned on the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal entry. It was removed after a WP:BLPN discussion for lack of sourcing - but that would at least be a plausible place to put the information. If this becomes the subject of serious legal analysis then I'll be totally on board with adding that or having an article on it. We're not there yet. Nblund talk 17:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It was removed from there 3RR, against reversions by multiple editors, claiming PRIVACY concerns, despite international newspaper coverage and considerable self publication by the complainant. So hardly a convincing removal and certainly no influence on this article, per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Lots of news coverage and opinion pieces from highly reliable sources around the globe. Not sure why this was nominated for deletion other than that Nblund and Fae seem to have very strong personal feelings on transgender-related topics. I've stumbled upon much less notable topics on Wikipedia. Rhino (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC) user blocked as sockpuppet
 * Shame that this AfD could not have remained free of unhelpful personal allegations about contributors. --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: Please note user Fæ has three times in less than 24 hours deleted the same material, in violation of the 3RV rule. Clearly the article is being tampered with.  A warning has been left on user Fæ's TP. XavierItzm (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * XavierItzm, Fae invoked the BLP, and rightly so, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And when Fae's response to other editors is "looks a lot like vandalism", they're a whisker away from ANI. I too am concerned about the large section blankings go on, during an AfD. That's not about BLP when this is information widely out on public media channels (and much of it was self-tweeted), but it is distruptive to the AfD process. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep There is clearly enough coverage, but the article is a bit undercooked and the case is apparently still being resolved in tribunal. Still, on the notability merits, it probably stands for now. Raymie (t • c) 17:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet the threshold for notability: still just a single news event. That this got picked up a couple of papers and a couple of right-wing outlets doesn't raise it above NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * One thing that it isn't (and basic research will show this) is a single new event. There are a number of issues to Jessica Yaniv as a "campaigner for trans rights" [sic], some profoundly negative. Constructing an article to WP:BLP standards around them would be another matter, but this is far from a single "15 minutes of fame" incident. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm too basic, but the sources are all from the same time, so one can hardly argue that the person already had a reputation as an activist or whatever, in any kind of provable way. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sourcing goes back a couple of years, especially re Cimorelli. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The scope of the article under discussion is a BCHRT case. The sources you are referring to would be of potential relevance to a biographical article about the complainant.--Trystan (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I'd like to see it re-framed as Jessica Yaniv. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, a BLP already existed using this person's birthname, but it was deleted and salted and that deletion was just endorsed under DRV - even in light of recent developments. I assume that would also apply to a BLP under this name - so you would need to start an WP:AFC discussion before doing that. I don't really think there's enough high quality sourcing to justify this article, much less a full BLP about this person. Nblund talk 23:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow.  So firstly you're going to conflate renaming the article as Jessica Yaniv, with the act of misgendering and deadnaming them. Then you're going to use the deletion of that name as a reason to pretend that Jessica Yaniv was already deleted and salted? That's some seriously misleading sleight of hand you're using. And just to be clear, Jessica Yaniv has neither been deleted nor salted and has only been created once, earlier today, as a redir to this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Que? I'm "conflating" an article using the person's birthname with an article using the person's current name because both names reference the same person, and both names were discussed in the deletion review. I also explicitly distinguished Yaniv's "birth name" from her current name, but noted that the deletion review... wait, why am I recounting my comment to you? Just read it for Christ sakes. It's the one directly above this. No one is trying to mislead you. Please read more carefully and apply some common sense and a little WP:AGF. Nblund talk 15:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:EVENT. Coverage lacks depth and duration. An article on tribunal case without a released decision is going to inherently tend toward sensationalism. Revisit once the decision is released and we actually have something to write an encyclopedia article about.--Trystan (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. I agree with Trystan that this doesn't meet WP:EVENT, and it also raises WP:BLP1E concerns.  It reads like a tabloid story that has received some sensationalist coverage.  If the story does demonstrate lasting coverage, then I would start with a section in British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal first.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Those writing this story off as "too small" or "not covered by sources" would do well to look at the whole history of it, without the continuing series of large section blankings going on. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * History Merge and Delete back to the Tribunal entry, after cutting down the excessive details on this. From the prior BLP:N discussion, this seems like something that can be safely covered as a notable case in the Tribunal's page without going into any significant detail. I would assume that if this gets more notable, it will be due to a court case at the highest levels in Canada - eg comparable to how Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission or R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission where the incident is significant to the court ruling, but itself not highlighted. As I believe there are contributions from the Tribunal page to here, and new contributions here, this can't be deleted without a proper history merge. --M asem (t) 19:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * support I wouldn't be overjoyed at that, as I'd see it as failing WP's vital role in ongoing investigative jourmalism. However as WP doesn't have such a role, and BLP significantly (and rightly) limits how far WP can go in that direction, it's probably the best option available to WP at this time. However better RS available in the future and I'd like to see this (and the rest) split out to Jessica Yaniv. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, there was at least a Toronto Sun story about it, and checking gnews now, at least a CBC and a UK Guardian article on it, all well above the other "tabloid-ish" sources that appear too. It is a fair story to be covered on both the Tribunal's page and Yaniv's page in minimal detail, at least until the Tribunal makes a ruling and determining if legal action is needed. But absolutely not a standalone article. --M asem (t) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)  (ETA at the time I wrote this comment, there was a Yaniv article, but that has been salted and redirected --M asem  (t) 14:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC))
 * There is no Yaniv page. There is general agreement that they do not meet PERSON when separated from the tribunal case and the increasing internet footprint of anti-trans rights related lobbying and mostly abusive click-bait that Google returns about Yaniv. --Fæ (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "There is general agreement " citation needed Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that this article was created rather than the creator's original idea of a BLP. However if you want to try creating a BLP, do have a go. --Fæ (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That was a decision I made, but evidently there is not a general agreement on it. Andy above made the case for creating a Jessica Yaniv page, citing another case about Yaniv which I wasn't aware of. The child exploitation allegation and Meghan Murphy being banned from Twitter for calling Yaniv by male pronouns are also not directly related to the genital waxing case. Rhino (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC) user blocked as sockpuppet
 * I would support the history merge and delete as well.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per the WP:EVENT and WP:BLP1E concerns raised by various !voters above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - various comments gyrate around a perceived lack of WP:RS. Observe this is only because of a mass campaign of deletions of the following major news sources, all documented on the TP:
 * Le Journal de Montréal
 * Toronto Sun
 * Vancouver Sun
 * The Herald (Glasgow)
 * The Now (newspaper)
 * All of these are major media blue-linked on wikipedia. The youngest on that list is an award-winning 35 year-old publication; another is the oldest newspaper in the world, established in 1783.  None of the articles are opinion; these are all straight news reporting.  Yet all these are deleted under the aspersions that the article does not cite its author (!!!) or that the article is biased (!!), or that the political reaction in Europe to the waxing case is irrelevant to the case itself (!).  And here I thought Wikipedia goes by the sources. XavierItzm (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * These sources are under discussion on the article talk page. This is rather pointless forum shopping. Summary:
 * 1. Is in French, it's just reposting agency material from other sources in English. It does not even have a named author.
 * 2. Has a transphobic title and seems designed to be click-bait for transphobic comments and hostile allegations posted at the bottom, it is redundant to better and less transphobic sources.
 * 3. Appears abusive, deliberately misgendering the subject and is about a genuinely fringe conspiracy theorist, despite you reposting this source multiple times in the article, you have in no way addressed the open discussion of it being a highly unreliable source for Wikipedia.
 * 4. Is totally irrelevant to the tribunal case, as it is a tangential mention of a twitter spat about calling Yaniv "female", while the actual newspaper article is mostly about something else entirely.
 * 5. "The Now" was sold in 2015 and no longer exists, so what are you talking about?
 * Do stop disrupting the article and discussions, and actually engage properly. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The vacuousness and lack of policy-based objections should be a red lining for the closing editor. The article is being arbitrarily manhandled. XavierItzm (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You appear to be ignoring the requirements of BLP for which credible reliable sources are fundamental. This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors. You appear to be locked on a crusade and unable to absorb the many responses you have had today. --Fæ (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * XavierItzm, I don't understand what you don't understand here. I'm not going to look through all those sources, but I've looked at no. 2, and Fae is spot on in their comments. And even if the other sources were acceptable, which I doubt, how can you talk about "vacuousness and lack of policy-based objections"? Fae's comments aren't vacuous, and their arguments go to the heart of WP:RS and the need to use impeccable sources in WP:BLPs. You will have to do much better than this. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "The vacuousness and lack of policy-based objections should be a red lining for the closing editor. The article is being arbitrarily manhandled."
 * Absolutely. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay Andy, how many of these five sources meet the quality reliable sources requirements of BLP and how many do not? As you have not been discussing them on the article talk page, and yet you seem happy to object to their removal in an AfD, you may instead find it more productive to post specific rationales as to why they benefit the article about the tribunal case there, which should be the first place to go. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether they meet RS or not, you'll remove them anyway. If you remove the Glasgow Herald (the only one of these I'm familiar with) as not meeting RS, then clearly you're just out to remove things, whether they meet RS or not. And this is, incidentally, a source for Fiona Robertson's description of Yaniv as a "female predator". You'll even remove a source, then complain that the content left is now unsourced! "Citations seem lost here during formating?" Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you are complaining, maybe you just want to keep on poking me to get a response, it's not clear, but you are not actually interested in explaining why any of the 5 sources listed are actually reliable sources that meet the BLP. Hm, nothing to do here then. --Fæ (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the major news sources that are blue-linked on wikipedia: I clicked on each of those blue links, and in four out of five, the word tabloid appears in the lead. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you should go back and read the Vancouver Sun article more carefully. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Vancouver Sun article being cited is syndicated content from Post Media, which owns several tabloids. The author is a writer/editor for the Toronto Sun (a tabloid), and it looks like that's the original source for the article. The same guy has written several stories on Yaniv, and they all look pretty crappy. I don't think these are really distinct sources. Nblund talk 19:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your point?  The Vancouver Sun becomes a tabloid because its writers also write for other papers? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Vancouver Sun article is by Graeme Gordon is identical to the same article in The Whig, no doubt it's been sold on to other Post Media organs, despite not being marked as syndicated. The article deliberately misgenders the trans woman it is about, so it's just hostile transphobic crap in my view, highly unsuitable for any BLP related article. --Fæ (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think that Gordon wrote the article for the Vancouver Sun, or do you think the Vancouver Sun simply reprinted it from the Toronto Sun? The reliability of a syndicated news story should be judged by the reputation of it's original publisher, because that's ultimately who has editorial control over the content. In this case, the original publisher appears to be The Toronto Sun (a tabloid), and the story is syndicated through Post Media (the company that owns both papers) and the original author is Graeme Gordon (who seems to be... on his way to a Pulitzer).  Nblund talk 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well "your view" certainly fails WP:RS, so no-one cares. Nor does the article misgender Jessica Yaniv. They make a point of quoting Dan Dicks doing so (who we certainly aren't going to give any column inches to), but Graeme Gordon nor the article do not do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone care? It misgenders a trans woman without any attempt at correction despite this being nonsense from a reported conspiracy theorist that nobody has heard of or cares about. We cannot use it in any BLP related article. It is written to be deliberately hateful and no matter how much Andy Dingley loves it, presumably because it includes some bizarre and unsupported unverified hearsay about child abuse, it is still transphobic crap, adds no value for the article about the tribunal case, and a really daft unreliable source to invest time debating. --Fæ (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fae, you are the only person here who has mentioned child abuse. Now stop assigning motives to other editors, and throwing loaded terms into the debate which no-one else has used, or else you're going to be doing it at ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , "Well "your view" certainly fails WP:RS, so no-one cares" makes no sense, and the second part if of course very uncollegial. Fae's "view" doesn't need to pass WP:RS, since Fae is not a secondary source. What matters is if their argument is cogent. Fae, and I have to give them props for it, is making the kind of argument that is well suited to an RSN discussion; from you I hear mostly vague generalities. (This is not to say, BTW, that I accept every argument they made--see article talk page.) You also proudly repeated your colleagues comment about "vacuousness" and all that--just as incorrectly. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is rather telling how, in the same paragraph, you can use a term like "uncollegial" and then refer to a "colleague" as an insinuation of sock- or meatpuppeting. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you please save the drama for the drama boards and restrict discussion here to whether or not this glaring BLP violation should remain on Wikipedia? Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable news sources and the case has prompted a broader debate about transgender rights in major publications, enough where a separate article is justified. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an episode of Beavis and Butthead. Or a place for developing news stories. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge with British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Not significant enough for its own article. This story has mostly attracted the attention of tabloid rags and anti-trans commentators. No coverage on CNN, Reuters, BBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Al Jazeera English, or The Associated Press. With that said, it seems like it has gotten a tiny amount of mainstream press coverage in Canada (See: this CBC link), so perhaps it's worthy of a small entry on the Tribunal page. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * UK broadsheets have covered it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the only UK broadsheet quoted as a possible source so far has an irrelevant and brief mention of the case when the article was about something else. That's not "coverage". I may have missed something, a link would help. --Fæ (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge with British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal per WP:NOTNEWS. Until the case is closed at polytburo and its effect, and coverage, can be assessed by RS, it falls into news category. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:BLP and WP:EVENTCRIT as this is not a notable event - and is one involving a BLP. Furthermore, it's a WP:POVFORK to circumvent the consensus at British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and WP:BLP/N that the subject should not be named which makes this whole article a violation of WP:BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Changing my !vote to speedy delete on the WP:CSD A10 and G10 criteria. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , given your actions on British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal, I wonder if you might could have a look at this--the article, the talk page, but also edits like this one. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but the publication ban was lifted by the courts given her activism, so I don't plan on taking further action. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: This court case has already received plenty of coverage in reliable sources and is, without a doubt, the most widely-publicized case heard in the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and it hasn't even come to a verdict yet. It passes notability criteria right now, and that will only strengthen when the decision is handed down. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Side note: a decision is not a prerequisite to notability as it relates to court cases. The article shouldn't be deleted simply because a decision hasn't been handed down yet. (If that was the case, we'd have many many many more articles to delete than just this one.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A decision matters for demonstrating that this will have any WP:LASTING significance beyond giving a platform for strangers to speculate about what may be in a woman's pants. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that this is such a widely and internationally discussed case for the BCHRT gives it lasting effect all on its own. Even if it didn't, as the policy states, this is not an automatic fail on inclusion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And as we went over at WP:BLP/N, before this WP:POVFORK was created by a subsequently indeffed sock, this is something that has to be viewed through the WP:PRIVACY and WP:BLP lens in general for both the subject and those people against whom she complained. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS - we certainly shouldn't aspire to be a tawdry gossip sheet. Absent that tawdry element, there's nothing here except a woman making a discrimination complaint for which no decision has been reached. And that's not anywhere near significant enough to warrant an article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no BLP problem with this page. Can you articulate the BLP issue, supported by quotes from Wikipedia policy? Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We were over this at length, notwithstanding all of the WP:GREENCHEESE from the few editors who wanted to violate the precepts of WP:BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's my problem. The BLP objections are based on some unwritten "precept" that seems to exist only in the eye of the beholder. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So the lasting significance of this case is that lots of people talked about it online? The human rights lawyer quoted by GlobalNews actually specifically disputed the idea that the ruling would having lasting significance: Quail added that she does not believe the case will set a precedent whichever way the tribunal rules because it is outside of the general thrust of trans activism. I'm aware of 4 articles are clear-cut WP:RS here, and one of them includes a notable figure directly challenging the significance of the story.  Nblund talk 19:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're operating on the mistaken assumption that lasting impact must absolutely be proven before an article can be made. That viewpoint is contradicted quite clearly by policy. Just like with the WP:BLP complaints, there is no "read between the lines and find what you want" aspect to WP:LASTING. Even so, I would argue that the high level of publicity this has received for a BCHRT makes it lasting in itself. Although there is no need, necessarily, for that to be true in order for this article to be kept. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're conflating "proof is not required" with "evidence is not required". Obviously if the president is assassinated we can make a case for presumed lasting effects even without waiting for lots of analysis, but this isn't the sort of story that warrants that sort of prima facie presumption of notability. What evidence can you provide beyond assertion? For comparison: Ken Bone does not have a separate article, but there are far more diverse and reputable sources for his debate question than there are for this.  Nblund talk 19:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the Geneva Convention protects WP:LASTING from this much torture. If the policy really did apply, it shouldn't need this much shoehorning. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow. Are you questioning whether WP:LASTING applies to this deletion discussion? Or are you questioning whether or not evidence is required for claiming lasting significance? Neither seems plausible. If you think other policies apply then please cite them, but I don't think a completely evidence-free assertion of notability is productive. Nblund talk 20:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - Sorry for the delay in responding to this. I missed your comment until now. My point is that WP:LASTING is nothing more than a guideline that helps determine whether something is "likely to be notable." It does not set forth a hard-and-fast rule, and in fact, states that "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." It is not the be-all-end-all of an article's notability determination. But even then, I would contend that a year of media coverage puts the WP:LASTING argument to bed. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:LASTING is about lasting effects on the world, not "lasting media coverage". And I think that the older coverage actually militate against your argument here: The Economist published a single story with no subsequent followup - that's not in-WP:DEPTH coverage. Nblund talk 19:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment It's also worth calling out specifically that this particular POV fork was created by who is a confirmed sockpuppet of  - who was indeffed specifically for Transphobia. So there's an element of WP:DENY in making sure they don't get to create an article that exists specifically to circumvent a clear consensus at WP:BLP/N in favour of restoring WP:BLP content. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for spelling this out clearly. Everyone should avoid engaging in unnecessary and avoidable naming and shaming of the person raising this tribunal case. The article name is itself unnecessarily explicit and is not the published tribunal case name. At this time, the subject is not a public figure and is not notable in their own right, as has been clearly explained. That the court has not suppressed any names, and tabloids are going out of their way in naming her, misgendering her, and republish unverifiable hearsay, does not mean that the respectful treatment of living people on Wikipedia can be ignored. --Fæ (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no "clear consensus" at BLP/N. I haven't counted the numbers, but it seems as if there are slightly more people advocating for the position that there was no BLP issue (although they might have raised other objections like NOTNEWS.) In any event, I don't think this would look like a clear consensus to anyone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BC_Trans_waxing_case Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject of the article has had their birth name salted due to repeated re-creation dating back to 2008. I'm convinced this fails WP:EVENT and is an end-around to a WP:BLP1E. If kept, the article needs to be renamed to the name of the case and turned into an actual legal article, as opposed to one that borders on salacious or transphobic. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; (the way the article is set up and titled seems like an effort to get around BLP1E, but) the subject simply doesn't seem to have recent enough significant coverage to have its own article even in this presentation. Failing deletion, at least merge it back into the article where it was formerly covered until the recent BLPN thread led to its being trimmed (namely, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal article), with significant cleanup of the content (the edit history of the BCHRT article provides a starting point for a better summary of what RS have given weight to). -sche (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Jessica Yaniv - As there is bucketloads of coverage from a Google search. But move to the person's name as they're notable for a bunch of controversial things they're saying/doing and not just limited to this case.--NØ 11:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Google does indeed give bucketloads of coverage. But how much of it stands up to RS for BLP? Most of it (by far) isn't usable for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is well-supported by RS as it stands right now. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * NO, they are not notable for a whole bunch of things: it's one thing, BLP1E, and the rest is all just pulled in to fill in the picture., I don't often agree with Andy Dingley, but here I do, and you skip over the thing that matters here. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Since the posting of this AfD, more (and better) RS's have come out:
 * https://nationalpost.com/news/jessica-yaniv
 * https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/canada/trans-activist-jessica-yanivs-human-rights-complaints-brought-her-prominence-now-shes-accused-of-harassment-and-predatory-behaviour-339555/
 * — James Cantor (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It should be noted that the article was nominated for deletion within 30 minutes of its creation, and even despite that hasty nom, the article and sourcing have only gotten better. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * None of which make this exceed 1E. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The mistake is that the article still exists. WP:ATTACK spells out pretty clearly what should happen to this. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, stop misrepresenting what has been going on here. The worst possible trash tabloid junk (mostly reprinted by Postmedia news as click-bait) has been repeatedly posted to the article and has had to be speedily removed per WP:BLP. --Fæ (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that the Canadian Broadcasting Company was "trash tabloid junk." Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody was calling the CBC trash - and frankly calling the Toronto Sun and other Postmedia outlets, "tabloid trash" is apropos. Postmedia has... like... one half-respected newspaper (the National Post). Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Postmedia news has been extensively discussed. They repeat serious hearsay ("subject of many allegations of harassment") that come originally from what is a conspiracy website with no editorial policies and one of the "editors" is fictional by their own declaration. Both of the links you provide are the same article, by the same journalist, with the same publisher. These are one source, not two. This continues to be a WP:BLP failure. --Fæ (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that while the PEI Guardian is generally reliable for reporting DUIs and fishing accidents in PEI, their network of reporters is nonexistent if you're farther from Charlottetown than North Cape. As such, the ability of the Guardian to meaningfully report on an incident in British Columbia is deeply dubious. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * James Cantor: The National Post is a better source, but that's the same story appearing in two papers owned by the same parent company. Per WP:DIVERSE, these should be treated as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Nblund talk 14:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And as I've mentioned a few times, the presence of sources don't confer automatic notability per WP:EVENTCRIT section 4. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nblund : Thanks, you are correct.— James Cantor (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or else merge to British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Who created the article and the poor quality for some of the previous sources is irrelevant now. We do not WP:CENSOR notable/noteworthy events because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have no idea where this talk of 'She Who Must Not Be Named' is coming from; RS and the legal case use her name and so can we. Seems like a selective misapplication of BLP. It is also inappropriate to claim that an RS's own source is a bad source; that is not our job here and we do not know all the sources for reputable journalists. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you mean by It is also inappropriate to claim that an RS's own source is a bad source; that is not our job here and we do not know all the sources for reputable journalists? Did someone do this?  Nblund talk 19:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that "RS own source" means the actual original publication for the text in an article if the journalist has not written those words and has just cut & paste them. This is also known as "the source", and if quoted "the source" must meet the requirements of WP:BLP, reliability has not been conferred just because someone repasted them. It's like saying Wikipedia can republish as fact some Tweets that a lazy Guardian journalist has reported as social media impact, er, no. --Fæ (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Initially I was on the fence and leaning to delete.  However, having searched for references on my own it's clear that this person has received a lot of coverage in context of the their human rights complaint and it's possible implications.  To that end it's possible it should be redirected but I'm not certain.  It's has been claimed that only tabloid news has discussed this case.  I'm sure that is true but I was also able to find references in National Review, Reason, Forbes [], The Federalist[], and The Times [].  I think that level of coverage addresses the question of DUE NOTE.  Springee (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A note that pieces by "Forbes.com contributors" have no editorial oversight and are not reliable per WP:RSP. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The material appeared at Forbes.com under the Forbes name. If that were the only site then I think you would have a stronger case.  Given the other, independent sites, such as New York Mag [] that have also covered the story the fact remains that NOTE has been shown.  Springee (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Forbes' blog posts are notorious. See the WP:RSP entry and the linked discussions there. Anyway I stand by my opinion that this isn't worthy of its own article, but I am leaning more towards a small entry in the Tribunal article being justified. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, per WP:RSP, "Forbe's Contributors" are essentially self-published. The common denominator in every site you've noted is that they're all conservative opinion pieces with essentially the same stance on trans rights. We need WP:DIVERSE coverage. Nblund talk 12:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:DIVERSE cautions that we shouldn't use a single source that is repeated by multiple outlets such as a AP wire story published in several papers. It doesn't say anything about needing to be from different political view points.  However, if that is a concern, PinkNews.co.uk is also covering the story.  I'm assuming they are not considered conservative.  Springee (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point - although PinkNews is also something of a niche source and their coverage is very limited. The dearth of straight news coverage (in comparison to the loads of editorial) is a huge problem for writing this entry neutrally.  Nblund talk 14:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal per WP:NOTNEWS, and if it gets enough coverage in the future it should go in a BLP. --Spacepine (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Economist has been covering this since October 2018. So, when is the major international media coverage going to satisfy your "if it gets enough coverage" personal requirement?  Thanks, XavierItzm (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Your ref is broken. But even when you fix it, if it turns out to be yet another Conservative opinion piece I don't see it swaying people that the requirements of WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENTCRIT have been met. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Economist ref is perfectly OK. XavierItzm (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To speculate? When the coverage moves out of opinion pieces, once the tribuneral makes a reportable decision and/or once WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENT concerns are otherwise addressed. All this will become clearer over time. In it's current state, I lean towards keep rather than delete --Spacepine (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It was broken. The with my comment appears to be you fixing the link. And your wikilink to The Economist was never in contention so I'm uncertain why you keep wikilinking to it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment There continue to be more RS's coming from high quality sources. This one covers more events/behaviours of Yaniv's, not the waxing case (although it is mentioned).
 * https://nationalpost.com/news/jessica-yaniv-a-transgender-b-c-activist-says-she-was-arrested-for-brandishing-a-taser
 * It might be useful if those who said previously that there wasn't enough coverage, whether they still think so.— James Cantor (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is mostly same recycled material previously published to tabloid journalism poor quality standards, with unsourced hearsay, by Postmedia Network. The Wikipedia article of this AfD is not about the antics of the plaintiff, or how social media reports it. This source has been discussed on the article talk page, and it remains irrelevant as it adds nothing to the article about the BC Tribunal case, because this is an article about the case, not reportage from day to day about social media allegations about the plaintiff. Even the claimed arrest is stated ambiguously in that article and it is unclear if there will be any consequences at this point that would have any bearing on the case the article is about. If you want to use it, create an article about the personal life of the plaintiff, rather than the case. --Fæ (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a fair characterization. The article is supported by citations from the Canadian Broadcasting Company, The Economist, The Australian, PinkNews, Yahoo! News, Global News, Surrey Now Leader, and also The Times (when I add that in later today.) The majority of the citations come from publications that have no connection at all to the Postmedia Network. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not the point being made. --Fæ (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "same recycled material previously published", no, of course it isn't. It's about the arrest, which has only recently happened. Please at least try to maintain some accuracy in your complaints. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But Post Media does seem to be disproportionately represented here. I count 6 different articles from their various affiliates, compared to just 1 from the CBC. I think the conspicuous lack of coverage of the arrest from any other reliable source is a good indication that they are kind of an outlier here. Nblund talk 23:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and consider moving to "Jessica Yaniv". The case has been widely covered enough that I've known a lot about it for the past couple of weeks, despite having little general insight into either Canadian legal events or the debates around transgender issues more broadly. There's something notable to be discussed here. If there's any serious WP:GNG objection, I'll look up sources, but that I don't think notability should be contentious. The BLP1E issue is really about how to structure Wikipedia's coverage and I think an article about Yaniv herself is the best way. It's the cleanest way to incorporate relevant biographical detail and the only alternative title I can see would be whatever the official title of the case before the BCHRT is. I don't see any advantage to choosing that and it isn't the "common name" in the sense that anyone will be searching for it. Any worries about the current state of the article, rather than the question of its existence, should be answered through improving edits rather than AfD. › Mortee  talk 23:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article on Yaniv (under her birthname) was deleted. Jonathunder (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In 2015. Clearly things have moved on since then. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 00:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I moved this to "waxing case"--because it's not about genitalia being waxed, because the sources don't call it a "genital waxing", and because "waxing" or "bikini waxing" is what we call it on Wikipedia. Not quite sure why this sensationalist name was chosen for the article. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm personally fine with that. I would prefer "Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons" personally. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Was the case renamed after the naming restriction was lifted? I think the title is (or was originally) "JY v. Various Waxing Salons". I can see the argument for that title, though it's a little opaque; some redirects could cover the opacity issue well enough. Personally, I'd think it's simplest to structure coverage around Jessica Yaniv. The article should be kept, anyway, whether that involves a rename and some refactoring or not. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 00:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's now "Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons".  I'd be happy with that as a name. I'd also prefer Jessica Yaniv and broadening the scope, but can't see adequate sourcing to achieve that as yet.
 * I'm not impressed with this rename. It's undiscussed on a clearly hugely contentious topic, which is bad enough. Also it is absolutely about genital waxing, that's the whole basis of it. Nor is it bikini waxing.
 * The weird thing is, in my far-from cosmopolitan village of Llanfairpodunk I could easily have 'the full English' waxed for me, any day of the week, by some cheerful local ladies with rubber gloves, no shame, a post-Viz sense of humour and presumably some sort of powerful (below-the-)belt sander. Is Canada really so difficult to find something similar? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Good example of how Wikipedia is not good for covering some kinds of ongoing stories in the news. Problems for WP:BLP as well as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N, which requires lasting significance. Lots and lots of opinion pieces, tabloids, and other kinds of sources that would be problematic for any article, let alone a BLP. No prejudice against recreation of an article on the case down the road if there's lasting significance. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:SIGCOV. I'm seeing the same story repeated in every publication that covers this, although the words may vary. Coverage is therefore not significant. And, there is no indication of lasting significance. Also, tabloid journalism is not sufficient for BLPs. Steve Quinn (talk)--- 06:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and consider moving to Jessica Yaniv. --Sharouser (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, leaning keep. This is not an area I am familiar with, and (I am Canadian) it has not received press coverage in the news sources I read regularly. However, it was brought to my attention by a relative in the Czech Republic, where it is being covered by the Czech press as a highlighted Canadian news story, e.g. . I looked it up on WP and found this article and AFD. Now, I haven't tracked through who has copied/translated whose article and how many editorially independent strands can be traced, but for better or worse this does seem to be achieving, in the colloquial rather than WP-policy sense, global notabilty. Martinp (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How does that line up with the requirements of WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENTCRIT? Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not the person you were responding to, but BLP1E applies when three criteria are met and I think it's clear that the last two do not apply. As for WP:EVENTCRIT, this has been widely reported for the last year or so and continues to generate new media every day. It has worldwide reach in such reliable publications as The Economist and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It clearly satisfies that policy as well. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment If I am reading these correctly:
 * WP:BLP1E does not indicate whether to delete, but whether to use Jassica Yaniv versus Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case (or similar).
 * WP:EVENTCRIT appears to be satisfied wrt national (Canadian) and international coverage. Whether the event will be durable remains to be seen, of course.
 * WP:SIGCOV again appears to be satisfied by the number of independent and high quality RS's, and although there also exist very many dependent and low quality comments, these do not make the good ones disappear.
 * Is there an aspect of any of these policies I am not seeing?— James Cantor (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * — James Cantor: WP:BLP1E is relevant here to the extent that editors are proposing a move to Jessica Yaniv. I don't see anyway around that one. I disagree that WP:EVENTCRIT has been satisfied. We don't having evidence of lasting impact (in fact, we have legal analysts a legal analyst saying this probably won't matter), and we don't have evidence of significant, diverse, or in-depth coverage. If we focus only on the truly high quality sources (The CBC, The Economist) we see very little evidence of anything beyond routine coverage of the basic facts of the case with no followup. Nblund talk 19:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If by "legal analysts" you mean "one attorney who has only practiced law for four years and has absolutely no notablity on their own", then yes. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, I shouldn't have used the plural there.  Nblund talk 20:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are now TWO legal analysts quoted in the article. In addition to the one mentioned by Nblund and Cosmic Sans (the attorney who said this case might not matter), there is a transgender attorney, who makes a cogent observation about the significance of this case. --FeralOink (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for, and retract my prior comment. Morgane Oger is often described as an advocate, and I mistook that for legal advocate. She is not an attorney. There *is* another legal analyst who is quoted extensively on the case, Howard Levitt, an employment and labour lawyer with decades of experience. The source publication seems to be disfavored in earlier comments, but the actual content of Attorney Levitt's article (see JY case shows that human rights tribunals can undermine those they should serve) is worth inclusion (although maybe more suitable for the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal Wiki entry), e.g. "It would seem that transgender rights are now trumping those of women, religion, ethnic rights and family values... cases such as this are ultimately weakening the protections minority groups require."--FeralOink (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty dubious on including yet another Post Media outlet here. Levitt is a lawyer, but this is clearly not a dispassionate legal analysis. It's an opinion piece that argues that Canada should abolish human rights tribunals, written by the guy who represents Jordan Peterson. Nblund talk 15:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This discussion seems a bit like "circling the wagons". Just because Wikipedians decide that something is not important does not change reality. This J.Yaniv case is one of the top three transgender cases in society. It will quite likely set precedents in Canada and elsewhere for what is allowed and what is not. Pretending that it's not important is like "the emperor's new clothes". The general public and the media still know that it's important. Lehasa (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

''Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)''
 * Keep, do not merge nor change title: While some editors have alleged violations of BLP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons) policy, that an article is a BLP is not a reason for deletion in itself. BLPs are allowed, if they adhere to the following standards:
 * Others have gone as far as to request speedy deletion.
 * For both BLP and speedy deletion, only when information is unsourced or poorly sourced is it ripe for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion - with none of those criteria being fulfilled in this case. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attack_page states that to be considered an attack page, a biographical article would need to be entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Neither of those criteria apply.


 * Among others, the following sources have been cited above: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Le Journal de Montréal, Vancouver Sun, The Herald (Glasgow), The Now (newspaper). The article itself is now sourced by (among other sources) The Economist, Yahoo! News,  The Globe and Mail. It also contains links to multiple decisions by the Tribunal in that case. For example, to lift the publication ban: http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/decisions/2019/jul/147_Yaniv_v_Various_Waxing_Salons_2019_BCHRT_147.pdf which means it is not a crystall ball article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball), but an actually pending tribunal case, with a scheduled ruling in 3 months per https://globalnews.ca/news/5698337/bc-human-rights-trans-waxing-case/, which means "the event is notable and almost certain to take place." (for the record, GlobalNews.CA which I cite here, and is also cited in the article, is a reliable Canadian source (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-news/ ) that also has its own WP article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_News )


 * This also means that the requirement of Verifiability (information published in reliable sources, and articles should cite those sources whenever possible) has undoubtedly been fulfilled.
 * Some editors disagree with the way the information has been presented in the reliable sources or with the information itself, but that is a reason which isn't valid for the deletion process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#When_to_not_use_deletion_process?
 * Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with.
 * Finally, because of the amount of reliable sources covering the tribunal case, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary : "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."


 * For those complaints about the quality of the article right now, the deletion policy also states: When to not use deletion process? Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.


 * Xavdeman (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete this article is a horrible violation of NPOV principals. It is an obviously one sided article that treats women with legitimate reasons to object to touching male genitalia as if they are inherently discriminatory in intent, and further advances narratives in the west that marginalize immigrants and people for whom neither English nor French is a primary language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have an NPOV issue with the article, I'd encourage you to edit the article (or suggest edits) rather than voting for wholesale deletion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep a version of this, under the actual case name, and sanitized of any remaining policy issues. The case, as a subject, is clearly notable (non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources).  Yaniv personally is not, since all coverage relates to the case.  But just because Yaniv's birth name can be found doesn't mean WP needs to use it.  Material that raises BLP concerns can be excised.  Similarly, any NPoV issues can simply be edited out.  The version of the article as I just now saw it didn't seem to have any kind of anti-TG bias. (A pro-TG bias is actually more common at such articles, due to WP's overwhelmingly left-leaning editorial base.)  The merge proposal (into a newspaper article) is absurd; the subject (a legal case) is not tied to a particular newspaper, even if that paper broke the story or won an award for it, or whatever. 107.204.239.99 (talk) (SMcCandlish via public WiFi) 16:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The merge proposal is to merge with British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the quasi-judicial human rights body that is handling the case, not a newspaper. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw another merge proposal at another page. Merging to the BCHRT article is also absurd; there's no logical "merge this" connection between such a body and the cases it hears, or we'd do things like merge Roe v. Wade into United States Supreme Court. 107.204.239.99 (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This article was forked off of the BCHRT article after I removed content related to this case from it under WP:TOOSOON grounds. Thus the calls to merge it are basically calling for the status quo from prior to this exploding WP:BLP/N and triggering the involvement of some of the regulars at that noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Tribunal article currently covers several cases, and I don't see why it shouldn't. Roe v. Wade obviously isn't comparable to this case as RvW has gotten much, much more coverage in reliable sources and there's much more to say about it. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This clearly meets notability criteria. On another note, the people on this page making veiled accusations of transphobia would do well to reread WP:Civil. Jtrainor (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone else remember the rude French Waiter? I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I think it is useful to compare this to another BCHRT case for some perspective. The story of the "rude French waiter" discrimination complaint was also filed at the same tribunal. It was covered in: The CBC, The National Post, The Guardian, The BBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post (among others). Obviously this is a silly story and none of this points to a lasting impact that would warrant an article (you might even struggle to justify a subsection), but nevertheless: it had more international coverage in top quality sources than this story has so far. I'm struggling to see how this story is more significant - beyond the fact that it generated a lot of hot air among conservative editorial writers. Nblund talk 20:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this comparison, I think it provides an interesting light on this situation. I did a Google News search for the name of the complainant in that case and got roughly the same number of results as for the case under discussion, so it seems like a fair comparison in terms of volume of coverage (though of course this waxing case still has an opportunity to attract more coverage once the decision is handed down). But here's the $10k question: do we not have an article on the rude waiter case because it's not notable, or merely because no-one has cared enough to write an article? If someone did write an article about the rude waiter case, using the sources you linked above as references, do you really think it would die at AfD? I'm dubious. If anyone has any examples of AfD discussions that resulted in deletion per WP:EVENTCRIT/WP:NOTNEWS despite comparable coverage in multiple top-tier news publications, I'd be genuinely interested to see. Colin M (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you would have an incredibly hard time writing that entry in a way that could survive AFD. What's the lasting significance of the case? It's basically a human interest story. As for other cases: Ken Bone was the example that came to my mind. His entry was selectively merged in to an article on the 2016 presidential debates, a fairly substantial amount of national and international coverage. Nblund talk 15:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. At best seems this should be covered in BC Human Rights Tribunal. Nblund's point about lasting coverage just above is convincing to me even if other stuff. PaleAqua  (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Jessica Yaniv. This issue continues to get daily international news coverage and raises timely issues about gender identity. It's only tangentially related to the BCHRT. Weggeworfene-leiter (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC) — User:Weggeworfene-leiter (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep This a well covered subject on multiple mainstream WP:RS about a topic that will have precedent in Canadian law for sure. Loganmac (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:NOTGOSSIP. This case might in the future have a lasting impact, and Yaniv herself may merit an article. However at present the lasting impact is unclear and we have gossipy coverage full of BLP/BLPCRIME concerns towards Yaniv (e.g. Taser arrest, genitals, harrassment), saloon workers (accused of human rights violation), and other parties. While the case might have a lasting legal impact - at the moment we are covering twitter exchanges and the shock news of ball waxing. Developing an article that is not gossip and does not imply criminal or human right violations is impossible at the moment. In a few months, once the dust settles on the ruling, and we have an actual verdict - we might be able to develop something that is not a rehash of shock gossip.Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Expanding a bit: Yaniv may be, umm, transitioning to be a WP:PUBLICFIGURE but she isn't quite there yet. Other BLPs involved are clearly low profile individuals. The case itself may have some lasting significance - but what we have at the moment isn't the legal arguments of the case - but rather trolling by various sides involved (or shouting from the sidelines) in this case. The signal-to-noise ratio - i.e. content that has WP:LASTING significance vs. twitter/youtube/oped expressing outrage and other feelings - is low, very low, below the belt low. Add to this the drama around this article on Wikipedia (BLP/n, ANI, I think ARCA, and anywhere else I forgot?) - we also high a very low on-wiki SNR. Once the tribunal makes a decision (or perhaps when there is reporting of more significant gravitas) - we will transition out of the TOOSOON zone here for Yaniv (or the case) - and we'll be able to write an encyclopedic article. At present - we have a BLP nightmare (as there is no finding either way), and very little content that will stay in the article six months from now. Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Icewhiz's justification for Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Firstly, the 29 women defendants accused of human rights violations are SALON business owners and home service providers, not SALOON workers. Next, this isn't at all about "the shock news of ball waxing". Genital waxing services for people with male genitals are abundantly available, and have been so for at least a decade in much of North and South America, Europe, Australia, and southeast Asia. There are even women who are willing providers of genital waxing services for people with male genitals. The key difference here is that the 29 cases under review all involve women who have no training or experience in waxing male genitals, and do not want to wax male genitals for a variety of reasons, many of which are associated with their identity as protected minority groups (e.g. immigrants, Muslims, impoverished mothers of young children). WP:TOOSOON seems to be a more reasonable justification for deletion.--FeralOink (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What we have at the moment is shock news and tabloid style reporting (even if published in non-tabloids). Lots of opinions and coverage of trolling and twitterspats (which Yaniv has been a part of). What we are lacking is significant legal analysis. We have little "heavy" content vs. lots of tabloid style stuff.Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the UK, this event has received significant mainstream coverage, e.g. in The Times, The Guardian and The Herald. We should also be cognisant that the subject was until recently subject to a media ban; it's not Wikipedia's role to publicise unheralded events, but we should take this into account before dismissing events as having inadequate coverage in mainstream media. McPhail (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All three of these seem to be opinion pieces. I don't think this constitutes "coverage" in the conventional sense of the term. Nblund talk 15:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Times article is in no sense an opinion piece. McPhail (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't read the full article, but the author describes herself as a columnist, and it seems to be simply uncritically passing along the views of Meghan Murphy, a fairly fringe anti-trans blogger. Is there any new reporting? At best, that's one piece. Along with one brief mention in the Economist a year ago. Nblund talk 15:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces wouldn't be the right way to cite factual claims, but why wouldn't they contribute to establishing notablity? If serious publications have, through their editors, chosen to dedicate space to a topic, opinionated or not, isn't that relevant? This might be a side issue in which case perhaps I should be asking it on a different page, but it's puzzling me. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 00:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV calls for sources that are reliable, secondary, and neutral (see note 2) for establishing notability. Opinion pieces are not generally considered reliable for statements of fact, and they are WP:primary and non-neutral by definition. Maybe they carry some small amount of weight, but they clearly shouldn't be conflated with reliably sourced in-depth news coverage because they can't form the basis of an acceptable entry. Nblund talk 00:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep the article passes WP:SIGCOV & WP:GEOSCOPE or consider moving to "Jessica Yaniv" Lightburst (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep.This article absolutely passes notability; it has been covered by mainstream media in not just Canada, but in the United States, Australia, the UK and across Europe. It is false that it has only been picked up by "right wing sites" - major publications from both sides of the political spectrum are covering it (The Guardian, for example). Topics that receive far less media coverage and legal significance have Wikipedia articles. Sorry, but this seems like a case of 'WP:CENSOR because WP:IDONTLIKEIT' Lilipo25 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Lilipo25, has The Guardian covered it in their regular news coverage, or are you referencing this opinion piece? That piece itself says that "While the Yaniv case has been going on for a while now, you may not have heard much about it, as it has largely been covered by the rightwing press." Nblund talk 23:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nblund As someone else (above) has pointed out, I don't know why you think that Op-Eds by reputable writers in major newspapers wouldn't count toward notability. Many 'controversial' stories are largely covered through Op-Eds. It's coverage by major newspapers, and that's what counts regarding WP:NOTE. And a noted newspaper columnist pointing out that only the right-wing press has been covering something and it's been ignored by the left as an indictment of media partisanship doesn't negate anything, either - she's covering it.
 * Frankly, even if this story were covered nowhere except Canada, it has gotten extensive coverage here and that's enough to warrant the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because Op-eds are not particularly useful for writing neutral and verifiable articles. WP:SIGCOV calls for reliable secondary sources. And op-eds are neither. Maybe you have a different interpretation, but it's clearly not the same thing (in terms of usefulness for encyclopedia writing) as a Guardian news article - and so I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing actual news coverage. It's a couple of paragraphs from a columnist that provides no new information, and it also notes the fact that the mainstream press has largely ignored this story.  Nblund talk 00:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But no one is proposing to use the Op-eds that way; you are arguing that they don't count toward notability, not whether or not they can be used as neutral sources on the article. There are other sources, particularly in Canada, that would qualify better as WP:RSS.
 * Frankly, half an hour after the creation of an article is just not an appropriate time to nominate it for deletion on these grounds. I spent most of the last three weeks working on an article that had existed for years, just improving it to make it encyclopedic. It's rare for an article to go up in its completed form immediately (and if I'm not mistaken, when an article DOES go up like that, Wikipedia suggests that it should be viewed with suspicion as having possibly been created by a paid professional). Standard practice is to suggest improvements/help improve it yourself, not immediately move for deletion. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's the whole point of WP:SIGCOV: we need to have enough reliable secondary coverage to write a factual article, and since op-eds are not really reliable or secondary, they don't get us to that point. Why would we consider a bunch of sources that are basically useless for actually writing an entry? This article was created as an attack page by a now blocked sockpuppet, after several editors explained why it shouldn't exist, and after a BLPN discussion where several editors objected to the existence of this story even as a subsection of the BCHRT entry. If the sockpuppetry had been caught earlier, it would have been a candidate for speedy deletion. So, no. I don't think this was premature. Nblund talk 01:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there were no RSSs - there were and are Canadian newspaper and news site articles that meet the requirement. Not to mention that a number of the Op-eds also contained factual information about the case that could have been used, and were written by reputable columnists for major newspapers. Wikipedia guidelines encourage editors not to delete incomplete or poorly sourced articles as soon as they go up because editors need to be given a chance to work on them and improve them. Sorry, but I definitely think you jumped the gun here. You should have made recommendations for improvement of the article and given it a chance before nominating for deletion.30 minutes is not sufficient time to allow for an article to be improved before asking for it to be deleted. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If want to more explanation as to why I afd'd this, you can bring it up on my user page, but this seems off-topic here: the speed of the nomination really has no bearing on WP:GNG.  Nblund talk 16:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep since subject easily, and for some unfortunately, passes the relevant notability criteria. The subject case, despite its origins in a trivial incident, evidently generates strong emotions in both the general public and Wikipedia editors. Render unto Caesar, though. -The Gnome (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. An excellent example of tabloid nonsense that should not appear in Encyclopedia. "Jessica Yaniv filed 13 complaints against various waxing salons alleging that she was refused Brazilian waxes because of her gender identity". Come on. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This got enough coverage to be notable. Oranjelo100 (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Now that we're nearing the end of the AfD, I wanted to remind everyone that this article was nominated for deletion within 30 minutes of its creation. The article is now much better than when it was nominated. We have sourcing from The Economist, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, PinkNews, The Austrlian, The Glasgow Herald, Yahoo! News, and more. This case has received international attention, and as noted in the article, was involved in legislative debates in Scotland and in Australia. This article has truly established itself as covering a notable topic, and new RSes are added every day. Cosmic Sans (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: an SNP official (not an MP, AFAIK) tweeted about it and got in trouble, and Coalition members in a state legislature in Victoria said it factored in to a decision to oppose a gender ID bill that they obviously would have always opposed to begin with. I don't see any indication that this was actually a part of legislative debates, and the past several days haven't produced new straight news coverage from anyone other than Post Media - which admittedly is humping this story for every last ounce of scandal. It's almost as if they have all have the same editorial stance with minimal autonomy or independence, and a penchant for pushing culture war stories no one else cares about. Nblund talk 02:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you think about Postmedia, the article is nevertheless supported by a host of reliable sources. Cosmic Sans (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, Fae did a pretty good job deconstructing the authority of a number of these supposedly reliable sources on the article talk page. But go on and repeat it a few more times. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable single event (WP:NOTNEWS). I've not been shy about my deletionist attitude to event articles (especially terrorist/shooting incidents). This is in the same vein; I doubt this will be notable 10 years from now let alone 10 weeks. If I'm wrong, then it deserves an article at that time (WP:TOOSOON). Otherwise this is just another news story that's made waves but lacks WP:LASTING notability.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In 2018, the story was covered by The Economist (UK), the National Post (Canada), (August 2018 - one full year ago) for example. The story continues to get daily coverage today.  One wonders what the support for "too soon" is?  XavierItzm (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "daily coverage today"--oh please. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete A single event whose article are violating BLP! -- M h hossein   talk 13:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Of course this is going to have significant coverage by the media. This single event is being reiterated by the authors of these so-called "reliable" tabloids who just want to enforce their personal views, and this community is letting them per WP:ADVOCACY. Can we not warp Wikipedia into a medium for the news. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2019 (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.