Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Southern


 * 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 no consensus. After discounting the several frivolous unsigned opinions, I get the impression that editors disagree in good faith about whether the level of sourcing is sufficient for notability.  Sandstein  18:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Lauren Southern

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable subject. First, she does not meet the general notability guidelines because the sources are either self-published (Twitter, The Rebel), non-reliable (The Daily Dot, Breitbart News Network), or covering only one event (The National Post, Yahoo; for the urine incident). Additionally, she does not meet the notability criteria for politicians where #1 requires a sub-national or larger office, #2 requires significant coverage, and #3 explicitly notes that being an "unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" and the Election Canada and libertarian.ca cites don't help her meet the primary notability criteria because the former is just a database on all candidates, while the latter is not an independent source. Notability requires independent in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. Considering that she is still a student at university, I'd say it is still too soon. Opencooper (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Subject is notable, has enough references and media coverage, full disclosure, I am also the author of this article. Vote keep. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The company she works for is considered to meet notability criteria for Wikipedia, and she appears to be one of the main contributors to the company. The article has mentions in third-party sources (Yahoo News, Daily Mail and National Post). A quick search shows she has lot of presence on the internet (videos with hundreds of thousands of views). And Breitbart, regardless of whether we consider it a reliable source or not, is certainly a notable one given their traffic and readership numbers (and their political influence, which is being much reported about in the media). Note that the Daily Mail is one of the most highly read media outlets in the world, while an editor of Breitbart is currently a campaign manager of the Republican presidential candidate (so it is notable coverage).  Avaya1 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that a publication may be notable does not hand an automatic notability pass to every individual contributor to that publication; she has to be the subject, as a standalone topic in her own right, of enough media coverage about her contributions to that publication to pass WP:GNG, and does not get to have an article just because her contributions to that publication provide primary source verification that she's a contributor to it. And neither does a person get a Wikipedia article on the basis of how many people viewed or clicked "like" on a piece of social media content — even people for whom being a creator of social media content is the notability claim in and of itself still only get articles if reliable source coverage is available about their creation of social media content, and do not get to keep poorly sourced articles just because they happen to have an impressive-sounding hit count. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Comrade Stalin has taught us that enemies of the people must be purged from the historical record.  All photos of her must be edited to have her removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.160.180 (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not about whether anybody agrees or disagrees with her politically; a person with properly demonstrated and properly substantiated notability gets an article on here regardless of whether any individual user likes or dislikes them, and a person whose notability is not properly demonstrated or properly referenced does not get an article on here regardless of what any individual user thinks of them. We keep articles about people who satisfy certain specific objective standards of public interest, and certain specific objective standards of referenceability — we do not keep articles about every single person who can be simply verified as existing, because we're not a free advertising platform. And not having a Wikipedia article does not constitute being "purged from the historical record", either, because Wikipedia is not the sum total of "the historical record". Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Seems fairly cut and dry deletion to me, "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally" . This is just someone with a relatively minor social media presence in particular social circles. References are not up to standard, and half the article is devoted to an election where the subject recieved an insignificant amount of votes. Musa acuminata (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete As per above. She is completely un-notable. The sources are inadequate, either they are not reliable or only mention her trivially in passing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing here is a strong claim of notability under Wikipedia's inclusion standards for her areas of activity, the sourcing is parked almost entirely on primary sources rather than reliable ones, and the few sources that do count as reliable ones are still disqualified because either (a) she's the author of the content, and thus it's still a primary source, or (b) it's not covering her in a context that confers notability ("banned from a Facebook group", for instance, is not a reason why a person gets an encyclopedia article.) She might accrue more genuine notability in the future, but nothing written or sourced here now is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Just a note to both sides that prefacing your vote with "strong" will not change how they are interpreted, nor is this a vote. The closing admin will weigh the arguments based on policy, so please try to adhere arguments to our actual notability guidelines. Thanks. Opencooper (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep but improve references. There's substantial Google hits regarding the subject of the article, but it needs improvement with citations. — Confession0791 talk 07:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:GOOGLEHITS: "Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number." Your vote would be substantially bolstered by sharing these usable and reliable sources. Opencooper (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I like Wikipedia a lot for information like this. I can not understand why this information should be removed. It sounds rather balanced too. I am from Europe, I cannot get information about her easily for she is not that famous in Europe. So I do not understand why her lemma should be removed. I liked it a lot to read some basic information about her. And I really hope that "brother Stalin" was meant ironically. For I am very sure Stalin would have hated wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theobril (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)  — Theobril (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. She has quite a few videos on youtube as a correspondent for The Rebel web site. The fact that she was defeated in an election with a negligible number of voters is irrelevant. What IS relevant is her notoriety. Judging from her abilities on youtube, she will become more and more visible and well known. The fact that people don't agree with her views is no reason to suppress information about her. Wikipedia is the natural place for people to investigate people they see in other places on the web--and this includes Lauren Southern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamlukman (talk • contribs) This account is less than a month old.  — Mamlukman (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That does not mean she is notable, but she has a good YouTube channel. Please read WP:LISTBIO Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I already explained above, this has nothing to do with liking or not liking, or agreeing or disagreeing with, her views — Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are not based on whether anybody approves of a person's ideology or not, but are based solely on whether the subject has or has not received a certain specific type of reliable source coverage about her doing what she does. The type of RS coverage it takes to qualify for a Wikipedia article has not been shown here, and a person does not get exempted from having to have that type of coverage just because they have a YouTube channel. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Neptune's Trident. —  Richard  BB  20:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All Neptune said was "has enough references and media coverage" while my nomination gave reasons for why that doesn't apply. Either show why my statements were wrong or highlight these valid references. However, saying "strong keep" per another user is not recommended, since "the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes. Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion." It's also worrying that you chose to "strong" vote meaning that you didn't read the previous discussion or ignored it. Opencooper (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bearcat. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. There are some reliable sources to point towards notability, but not enough. Right now the piss-throwing incident is the only thing that has gotten RS coverage, but that would fall under WP:BLP1E. In a few years there's a good chance that she'll qualify, but the coverage isn't there yet. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think it's too soon then do you propose a move to the draftspace? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Would not have a problem with this. At this point, there's not enough for a mainspace article though. Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep her simply because people want to repress information about her. Lauren is a well spoken intelligent person that people when they hear her will want to look for more information about her. Blocking people with opposing views is the worst thing that can happen in a free and open society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.245.178 (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)  — 184.60.245.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Not the criteria for keeping or deleting. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, nobody is trying to "repress" or "block" information about her — Wikipedia has specific inclusion criteria (specific quantifiable achievements, a specific minimum volume and quality of reliable source coverage, etc.) that must be met for an article on here to become earned, and evidence has not been shown that she meets any of those criteria. We are not a place where a person is entitled to have an article for publicity purposes just because she exists, nor are we a place where an article's retention or deletion has anything to do with anybody's ideology. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Anon, if there is any evidence that this deletion proposal is ideologically driven, then please present it. Otherwise your assertion is null. — Confession0791 talk 21:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep She's become quite notable, even her minor journalistic projects are covered by the media, and she regularly appears as a guest on certain Canadian cable news programs.— wing  gundam  09:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Appearing in the media as a commentator on other subjects does not exempt a person from having to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG — but people still keep failing to show the degree of media coverage about her that it takes, and are still relying on the "she's notable because I say she is" school of non-policy non-argument. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  15:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This young woman is a prolific and courageous Libertarian journalist and commentator. This is notwithstanding her previous, unsuccessful foray into Canadian politics.  Consistent with the majority of Canadians (76%) http://angusreid.org/political-correctness/ she does not support political correctness, which no doubt makes her a valid target for Progressive ideologues.  Therefore, despite the rationalizations above (i.e., that this is not an witchhunt), it is difficult to dismiss the coincidence between her commentary regarding the SJW who aggressed and bullied the Lyft driver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LdmBqJLYcU and these precipituous, and despicable, efforts to censor her (including reported suspension of her YouTube channel and the push to banish her to the Wikipedia memory hole).  Notably, on the former, she apparently has > 87,000 followers and > 3.3 MILLION views, despite having been posting there for only 16 months.  As well, she is a regularly-scheduled contributor http://www.therebel.media/stand_off_with_lauren_southern?page=1 on TheRebel.media, with a total of 13 broadcasts since 1 March 2016.  TheRebel.media is a very popular Canadian Conservative news website (another reason marking Ms. Southern as a target) ranked 1305th in Canada http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/therebel.media and number one in Canadian news and media websites http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Regional/North_America/Canada/Society_and_Culture/Politics/News_and_Media. 68.149.58.134 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC) — 68.149.58.134 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * For the last time: Wikipedia does not keep or delete articles for ideological reasons. We keep or delete articles on the basis of whether or not the topic is the subject of enough reliable source coverage about her, in media independent of her own paycheque provider, to verify that she has objectively accomplished some specific marker of notability. Regardless of her ideological leanings being left or right or moderate or entirely apolitical, a person does not get a Wikipedia article just because of an impressive hit count on social media. The question of whether a person gets a Wikipedia article or not is based on whether or not third parties are writing and publishing content about her doing something noteworthy — people do not get to game our inclusion rules by self-publishing their own YouTube videos. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per the consensus before relisting, due to the lack of existence of independent reliable sources. Why on Earth was this relisted? There were five people giving valid reasons for deletion and none giving valid reasons for keeping. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON and lack of sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. The section "Activities" reads like a tabloid; she's not yet done anything significant to warrant an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment — If this article is deleted, I propose it be redirected to The Rebel Media. — Confession0791 talk 06:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that most of the references are not independent and should be removed, and that the article needs a lot of work. However, on the subject of notability, I have found additional sources that I think just pushes it over the bar:
 * Breitbarth News - one is referenced in the article and she is covered in several other BNN articles. Some may not consider Breitbarth a RS but I do.
 * Dailymail.com, already referenced in article. (same as above)
 * Wall Street Journal, already referenced in article. Clearly a RS, but pay site and I can't tell if it is non-trivial.
 * Foxnews on the Facebook censorship []
 * Michigan Review, although regional it is independent, reliable, and in-depth []
 * Gazette (Colorado Springs) coverage of twitter controversy: []
 * Another smaller publication: []
 * A mention on CNN: []
 * A mention on Pittsburgh Post Gazette: []
 * Coverage on a Canadian news site: []
 * I think that collectively there is enough here.MB 19:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's go through the list, besides the ones already in the article since those were already covered:
 * The WSJ article can be read here. All it does is mention a headline with her name in it. That's all.
 * The Fox News article is just a top-10 listicle and does not cover her or the censorship in depth
 * The Michigan Review is a campus newspaper, not what I would call a RS. Anyway, the source is about a talk she gave and just reiterates her points. It's just rehashing a self-given talk and not really about the subject herself.
 * The Gazette might be usable but it merely discusses some small twitter drama. Certainly nothing to hinge notability on since it only discusses a small event. (The general notability guidelines requires in depth coverage by multiple sources)
 * The other St. Alvert Gazette piece is by "a local student and aspiring writer" in the opinions column.
 * The CNN and Pittsburgh Post Gazette links merely mentions her in passing. The latter literally just mentions her name.
 * The Canadian source is already in the article and was part of the single urine incident. Again, notability does not come from one event.
 * Based on your sources I still don't think she Creative Loafingis notable. Notability requires in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. Based on these sources we could mention the subject as part of some small events but to say she is generally notable would require more independent focus on her rather than some stuff she says covered in local newspapers. This is a good example of why Google hits can be misleading: although it looks like she's covered everywhere, what we could actually say about her in reliable sources would be extremely limited and that is doubly so for statements for biographies of living people which especially require quality sources. Opencooper (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are so many hits it is time consuming to sort through them. I want to "disclose" that I have never heard of her before I saw this AFD and got involved because the discussion was so strongly polarized between strong keep and strong delete. I have found more coverage:
 * UK coverage on SKY News broadcast: []
 * Another internet news outlet: []
 * Dailywire: []
 * another UK news site: []
 * I see coverage in multiple countries (US, Canada, UK) for over a year on several different issues (urine incident, rape culture protest, Facebook censorship, Sky News comments). I may have missed more while discarding all the other hits from unreliable blogs of every type as well as her own reporting on therebel. It would certainly help the keep argument if there were more in-depth sources, but I still think there is enough here based on quantity of independent reliable sources. MB 03:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Is it a coincidence that the effort to delete her Wikipedia entry started on August 26, right after Hillary's speech on the Alt Right? This is a transparent effort to suppresCreative Loafings a well-known Alt Right voice, couched to fit under Wikipedia's rules regarding notability. An effort to indirectly discredit the Alt Right as fringe, non-notable, and illegitimate.  Orwellian bullshit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.160.180 (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that Southern neither identifies as, nor is considered to be alt-right. — Confession0791 talk 05:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For an example of how to make a valid argument for keeping (which may or may not be a sound argument - I haven't yet checked the sources) see MB's posts above. Unfounded accusations of conspiracy theories can only serve to discredit your case. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Confession0791 above asked if there's evidence that the deletion proposal is ideologically driven: "Anon, if there is any evidence that this deletion proposal is ideologically driven, then please present it." The precise timing of the proposal is circumstantial evidence that it is ideologically driven. The proposal surfaced right after Hillary's speech, which was influential.   No conspiracy is required. You can't really expect a smoking gun confession here, and circumstantial evidence is still evidence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8880:1800:202E:2E8F:52E5:8665 (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Such circumstantial evidence holds no water in a rational discussion, which we are supposed to be having here. The issue is whether Southern meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, not your assumptions of bad faith about other editors. As I said before, you are only discrediting your case by making such statements rather than bringing potential sources to our attention as MB has done above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep To keep things short, Southern is a prolific Libertarian activist within Canada, especially on the west coast. She has been featured on many domestic and International media outlets (recently Sky News for example, though CBC, National Post, Yahoo, Fox News are just some examples I can think of off the top of my head) and is influential in her field, at least in Canada. Though the article needs improvements, I would argue she does meet notability. I don't see how she would not meet notability guidelines while a lesser known person such as Brian Lilley does.Spilia4 (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of enough media coverage about her to pass WP:GNG, not by simply verifying the existence of her appearances in media as a pundit speaking about other subjects. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bearcat. No rationale has been giving for keep that mentions how she is notable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep She's the most well-known candidate for her party (arguably more than even the party's leader, she has 50x the Twitter followers than him and he's notable enough for a Wiki entry), has her own show on a news outlet considered notable enough for an entry and is featured in several RS publications. She has over 120k followers of her verified Twitter account and almost 60k followers of her Facebook page. She has been the subject of a few viral videos and made appearances on the BBC & Skynews. --TheTruthiness (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware neither follower count or verification status are considered adequate criteria for being considered notable enough to have an article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Additionally, notability is not inherited. Opencooper (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Not only has she appeared on multiple media outlets internationally, she's also a political figure, having run to office. -- Evans1982 (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Having run for office does not automatically make one notable according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as I explained in my nomination. Opencooper (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, WP:TOOSOON, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:MILL. The subject is a 21 year old college student at a small and obscure "college" who writes a blog for a small media company north of the United States border. Provincial and run of the mill doesn't begin to describe her. Bad things happen to her and people around her when she violates good manners and others' personal body space. So what? She received a little over 500 votes in her only election, about one percent of the total, and about 400 votes more than I had in my last election. Again, so what? The sourcing truly, utterly stinks like a dead moose. A tweet of hers was once quoted by the Washington Post. So what? It's so good to be reminded that White privilege is not restricted to the middle class, males, straight females, or ugly Americans. For good effect, salt this one, please, closing admin; "you are our only hope." Bearian (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep She is an important libertarian activist who has received enough media coverage for an article. I wouldnt consider Rebel Media to be a small media company, but I digress. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 21:02, 12 September 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.