Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Nelson


 * 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 it's not unanimous, there seems to be broad agreement that the sources that are available for this person don't rise past the level required for WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Katie Nelson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nomination. This was listed for prod, with the rationale "not notable" but no further detail, which was then deprodded by an anonymous IP -- however, after reviewing the sourcing I'm on the nominator's side. Of the 27 sources here, 10 are not about her in any substantive way -- a couple of them briefly namecheck her existence in the process of failing to be about her, while most of them fail to even include her name at all. Another 10 are sources, such as user-generated discussion forums or university student newspapers, which cannot count toward meeting WP:GNG at all. The real kicker here is that out of all the media coverage of the Roosh V drink-throwing incident, not a single one of those articles names Nelson at all: they all cover an unnamed woman throwing a drink at Roosh, and Roosh's own discussion forum is the only place where Nelson is claimed as the thrower. But if an unreliable source is the only place making that claim, then WP:BLP unequivocally prohibits us from repeating the claim here. And of the seven sources which are substantively about her in publications that do satisfy GNG, all seven of them are covering her in the context of a single incident. Accordingly, her encyclopedic notability has not been properly demonstrated: the majority of the sourcing here is total garbage, and the little bit that is acceptable just makes her a WP:BLP1E. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, it's more than one incident.  In 2013, she alleged that she was profiled by the cops and excessively fined ( from La Presse and  from CTV News), and, in 2015, she filed a lawsuit that alleges that the police assaulted her in a protest ( from Le Devoir and  from CTV News).  She also was involved in posting pics of uncover cops ( from CBC.ca).  However, since all this coverage is about Montreal cops, I'm thinking that this could be summed up in two sentences in Service de police de la Ville de Montréal.  I'm curious what others think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Katie Nelson has launched a landmark case against the Montreal Police (SPVM) for political profiling and is being represented by Julius Grey in this matter pro-bono. This is a case that will undoubtedly make its way to the Supreme Court of Canada which makes her notable in and of itself. The importance of this is demonstrated by the national media coverage (CBC, CTV) Nelson generated when the initial case was launched and more recently after she was hospitalized. The Roosh V stuff is minor compared to this, but its prominence in this discussion really seems suspect to me. Theleaflord (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Its prominence in the article is the thing that's suspect: the timing of when the article got created (just nine days ago, within hours of Roosh naming her as the drink-thrower on his discussion forum) strongly suggests that it's the real reason somebody thought she was includable, and the sourcing for that linkage to her is a blatant WP:BLP violation. So no, you do not get to dismiss that issue as irrelevant or "suspect" — even if the article does get kept for other reasons, the entire Roosh section has to be entirely removed from it.
 * And incidentally, WP:CRYSTAL applies here as well: we can't deem her notable because of a user's prediction that the court case might make it to the Supreme Court someday, but rather have to wait until the case does hit the Supreme Court. And even if that does happen, what that will justify on Wikipedia is an event article about the case, to which Nelson would just be a redirect rather than a standalone BLP in her own right as a separate topic. Bearcat (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The Roosh V section apparently has been removed, though I honestly don't see why. Roosh named her as the beer thrower and unless you are suggesting that Roosh V is not notable (something I will wholeheartedly back you up on) the reference should be included. Minus the Roosh V incident, Katie Nelson is still notable, and not just via some blip of media coverage. Her case against the police may have brought her into the spotlight (it is, as far as I can tell the first time in Canada someone has sued the police for political profiling), but she has remained there and appears on morning radio talk shows and other media frequently. People in Montreal know the name Katie Nelson. Recently, she experienced another as you would call it "blip" when she was hospitalized during a protest. More national and international media coverage.08:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Theleaflord (talk)
 * The problem with the Roosh V section is that all of the reliable sources reported an unnamed woman, and Roosh V's own user-generated discussion forum was the only source that linked Nelson to it. It's not that Roosh is not notable — unfortunately he is notable, whether you or I like the fact or not — it's that the source which named her as the drink-thrower was a chat forum and not a reliable media source. And if she's notable for more than just the police case, then that certainly hasn't been demonstrated by the fact that virtually everything outside the police case is parked on unreliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It was actually Roosh`s verified Twitter account which named her and then linked to the forum. Regardless, minus the Roosh stuff, Nelson is still notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleaflord (talk • contribs) 08:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The source cited here was the discussion forum, not Twitter. Regardless, Twitter isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia content either — until an independent, reliable media outlet publishes verification that she was the drink-thrower, Roosh's own self-published identification of Nelson as the drink-thrower doesn't get into a Wikipedia article about her regardless of what platform he claimed it on. And again, fully 66% of the sourcing here is unreliable sources that cannot make a person notable under WP:GNG, and the remainder is piled virtually entirely on the police case — if she's notable for more than just the police case, then she has to be reliably sourced for more than just the police case. Bearcat (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Disagree with deletion, Nelson has numerous citations for different incidences prior to Roosh V incident, including the "Assault 2015" and as well test case political profiling, wiki editors should be aware of contentious or malicious flags for deletion because of once incident, mainly the Roosh V incident. We are aware of trolls editing these pages and deleting them for other purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh78e34 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * — Gh78e34 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please familiarize yourself with our WP:BLP1E rules: we do not keep articles about people whose notability is tied to a single blip of media coverage deriving from a single event. And Roosh isn't even the 1E I'm talking about — that's an outright WP:BLP violation that has to stay out of the article regardless of whether it gets kept or deleted for any other reason, because it's not reliably sourced that she was the drink-thrower, so if that were her main notability claim this would actually have been speedy-deleted as a BLP-zero-E. Also kindly read our no personal attacks rule: I'm one of the longest-serving and most prolific contributors to the entire project, and am quite well-known as a respected and trustworthy contributor who does not let my own personal feelings about a subject interfere with the facts of whether the article meets our inclusion standards or not — I've voted to keep people I personally dislike if the sourcing and notability was adequate (hell, I've even created articles about people I personally dislike, but who cleanly passed our notability standards), and I've voted to delete people I personally support if the sourcing and notability wasn't adequate. And my own personal politics are far closer to Nelson's than to any of her opponents, so this isn't an attack against her for any ideological reason: the notability and quality of sourcing just are not there under our inclusion and sourcing rules. Bearcat (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is my point exactly, it is not one single event, there are on going events - not just Roosh V. For example, the SPVM, Israel, Civil suits, activism, Occupy Wallstreet - it is on going.. I am sorry, but I think you may need to evaluate your position here. Plus, the roosh V incident has since been edited out of the page - the page consists of numerous long time events, seemingly since before 2010 - this is notable in itself. And as well, mentions from other pages. I would suggest the re-evaluation of your opinion on this page. I am familiar with the rules you have cited, and this page does not violate them. Objectively, you should reconsider your position. Until you do, this objection looks biased. You have not provided a sufficient argument for removal. If sourcing is an issue, than better source. But it appears this page falls in line with notability, with a few minor edits it would stand adequately against deletion - if this is your only problem, than simply edit the page.
 * The only sources here that count as reliable ones are covering her in the context of one event, not several events — all of the other events you list are sourced to unreliable sources, and/or passing namechecks of her existence in coverage which isn't about her in any substantive way. Even with the Roosh stuff stripped, the referencing is still fully two-thirds to sources that cannot support any topic's notability. And no, this is not a "personal bias" issue, and a brand-new editor who registered just to create this article does not get to tell me that they know my motivations better than I do. Bearcat (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 *  Comment . It would appear this page has already been up for deletion in the past - and was unsuccessful in that. This should be taken into consideration as well, how many times will this page be flagged for deletion? Clearly, it is adequate.
 * The prod process and the AFD process are two different things. A declined prod does not make the article ineligible for AFD discussion — in fact, in most cases a declined prod virtually ensures that somebody will take it to AFD for wider discussion. A declined prod does not prove in and of itself that the article is "adequate", especially when the prod was declined by an anonymous IP number rather than an established editor. Bearcat (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether the prod was declined by an anonymous editor or by a registered editor, as I am sure you know, has no bearing whatsoever on whether the validity of the action or on whether the article is adequate or not. 72.94.61.22 (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Anonymous IPs quite frequently remove maintenance or project templates from articles without a valid basis for the removal, so no, the matter of whether an article was deprodded by an anonymous IP is not entirely irrelevant — it doesn't make a difference insofar as permitting anybody to restore the prod template a second time, but deprodding does not preclude the article from being escalated to AFD if other editors still disagree with your opinion on the matter. In fact, in most cases the very fact that two different editors have different opinions about the same content inherently demonstrates that a wider discussion is needed. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 *  Comment . We cannot simply judge this page just because one event is currently a news item, or "Viral". The page consists of numerous references to historical events, that which exist of public interest and as well are influential and referenced in other pages - It isn't surprising the page was created after another event became well know, that is not a good enough argument for deletion, many pages are created after a person or living person becomes "news worthy", especially when the page consists of not one single event. As we can see above it references many different things, I suggest reviewing deletion of this page, it does not seem logical, especially in external and wikipedia references to this name.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The nomination makes a convincing argument that this BLP is referenced only to unreliable/inadequate sources to support sufficient notability to meet eligibility criteria beyond BLP1E. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 *  Keep How are numerous CBC/CTV/Global reports as well as articles in the Montreal Gazette and other recognized media unreliable or inadequate? Katie Nelson has been widely covered not only for her lawsuit against the Montreal police, but for her recent hospitalization during a protest, student tribunals at Concordia, etc, etc. Perhaps editing to add new sources like interviews and debates with her on CJAD Radio dealing with both her lawsuit and the tribunals, two separate stories of her activism would improve the page, but this is clearly a notable person. Theleaflord (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The student tribunals at Concordia are sourced to Concordia's own student newspaper — but student newspapers do not count toward WP:GNG (a newspaper has to be both general-market and daily to count toward establishing notability). Hospitalization after a protest is not a notability-conferring event at all, so that doesn't lift her from a BLP1E to a BLP2E. And radio content can only contribute to GNG if that radio content is (a) national rather than local (i.e. CBC Radio = yes, CJAD = no), and (b) archived somewhere that a reader looking to verify the sources can actually hear the entire piece for themselves. CJAD is a source that can be used for additional verification of facts after sufficient sourcing is already present to satisfy GNG — but it is not a source that can contribute to the passage of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Student tribunals were also reported on and Nelson interviewed by Global TV Global TV. The hospitalization, and in particular the fact that Nelson claims it was done by undercover police was carried by CBC, CTV, The Montreal Gazette, countless news websites around the world and yes, the student press as well, even though you don't count that. My point is that pretty much every time she does something or is part of something major, all three local TV stations, newspapers, websites and sometimes international press interview and/or report on her. Why? Because she is a notable person. How many people get interviewed by various establishment media outlets as well as independent media on various subjects? Theleaflord (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards delete but where does it say in our policy that a newspaper must be published "daily" to be considered RS? That's news to me. Surely weekly papers such as Georgia Straight are RS. And I'm not aware of any policy that disallows student-run papers such as the Link or McGill Daily as RS. Did I miss that? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

* Comment . Don't delete this page please I just used it to cite a paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.98.228 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I've read through all the opinions here, and I'm siding with Bearcat, who makes valid counter arguments against every reason given why this person is independently notable. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I went through the sources in the article and ran a couple of searches before coming to the same conclusion as Nom. Delete because this is a highly inflaved , poorly sourced article about an individual whose notability I cannot find support for in reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. As Bearcat points out, the sources are really, really sketchy and, therefore, help further make the point that this individual does not meet Wikipedia's standard of noteworthiness. Cla68 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Anyway, regardless of my questions to Bearcat about the (in)admissibility of non-daily or student papers as RS, the only time Ms. Nelson becomes the prominent subject of significant independent coverage is for the lawsuit, from what I can see. So BLP1E does apply. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not true. she received considerable coverage in both French and English as well as some international coverage when she was knocked to the ground by (she claims) undercover police during a protest. While the coverage does mention her lawsuit (which is, I believe, the first of its kind in Canada), that is not the focus, the attack, a separate incident, is. She has also been covered for her work with the Concordia BDS Campaign, student tribunals, etc, etc. When there's a story that she is a part of, local media in Montreal seems to gravitate to her. If this article was improperly sourced, fine, but that demands a different type of box than delete for the subject not being notable. While I believe that bearcat and others are operating in good faith, I suspect the original person who flagged this page for deletion wasn't. In fact, a week before this discussion began, the page was vandalized to read "Katie Nelson is an terrorist" (bad grammar left in if only to suggest this was a hasty edit) and then repaired. I suspect the same person who vandalized the page originally flagged the page for deletion. I also suspect that they are a fan of Roosh V, whose acolytes have been in an online war with Ms. Nelson since he identified her as the beer thrower (which, incidentally, would prove her notability in a heartbeat if it was admissible, given the fact that the video of the incident went viral and was picked up by Vice, Buzzfeed, random media outlets in France, etc.). My point is that if this wasn't for a vendetta, we wouldn't be having this discussion. No one would have flagged this page which, it seems, could now be deleted on a technicality or due to the inexperience of the person who created it and their sourcing. Theleaflord (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.