Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suey Park


 * 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. Policy based arguments are clearly for DELETE D  P  18:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Suey Park

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP1E. This article was recently created because of the single notable development which concerns this person, or rather the notable response to her coining a twitter hashtag. The other claim to notability is the coining of a previous hashtag, the use of which is unquantified and primarily related to a movement rather than a single private figure who has contributed to it.

The article's basically about a recent kerfluffle which is not likely to have lasting effects, outside of perhaps a footnote as one of thousands of twitter-related media stories. Park may or may not become a notable activist in the future, however it is not Wikipedia's role to promote her fledgling career, nor to cover minor current events. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I can see where you may see where BLP1E applies, but there is a difference between creating a few hashtags and creating hashtags that create a discussion (as seen in #NotYourAsianSidekick) and starts similar trends. In terms of the following things that are mentioned on 1E, the following are not met in the sense that she is unnotable:


 * "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
 * If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
 * If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented."


 * She has been mentioned in regards to the two big hashtags both before this recent event and now, and both were in depth. In terms of the second one, we cannot see the future, but merging or redirecting the information would be a bad idea because it has no good place to go. In terms of the last one, she is pretty well documented online for her actions, although it might not be a bad idea to clarify the rules for social media personalities in the future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * She is a low-profile individual.
 * What is a "big" hash tag? How notable was her first hashtag? Given that she has only 20k followers she is quite under the radar as far as twitter notoriety goes. Creating two trending hashtags is insufficient grounds for notability and that is all Park has contributed to the respective advocacy movements. Here we come to a common misconception: when a journalist interviews an activist about their movement they are covering the movement, not necessarily the activist herself. It's only after the latest incident that there's been any interest in Park as an individual rather than the field of advocacy she practices in. Even so the coverage is insufficient to fill out any sort of fleshed out biography, right now basically all we have are media mentions of two hashtags and unquantified claims of their trending trajectories or importance within the respective movements.
 * The latest incident was covered in the context of the Colbert Report, it would only make sense to cover (& merge) it in one of the Colbert Report-related articles.
 * With current events there is always a danger that Wikipedia content might become entwined in the spirit of recentism and alter the course of coverage or have potential consequences on the lives and careers of low-profile individuals. This is part of the spirit of our BLP policies. Right now the article boils down to two hashtags and mentions of her being harassed because of the second one. Having this be the sole content of the article may adversely impact the subject due to the prominence given to Wikipedia articles by google. The article could be misappropriated to promote unrelated causes or to harass its subject. That's actually why Colbert preferred not to mention the activist by name. There is potential harm in leaving this article as it is right now - if the recent event gains even greater coverage and prominence with respect to its subject's fate, the Colbert Show or twitter, or if its subject goes on to become a notable activist then it would have a far better basis with regard to BLP. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete C'mon guys, this is a clear WP:BLP1E and a case of WP:NOTNEWS if I ever saw one. If the subject ever actually attains any sort of real notability as an activist then fine, but right now that's not the case. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Anteode. I find it highly unlikely that, in the near future, the article is going to contain anything but information about her hashtags and the drama that's been generated around them. Creating a popular twitter hashtag is hardly even what I would consider a claim of significance, which is why I originally speedy-tagged it.  Protoss  Pylon  07:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters whether you personally consider creating hashtags a claim to significance; if reliable sources like BBC, NPR, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, etc. have taken note of those hashtags and of her as their creator, she is notable by WP:GNG standards. AlmostGrad (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Park certainly meets WP:GNG. She essentially started "hashtag activism", and irrespective of whether that kind of activism has actually contributed directly to her cause(s), she has been able to spark in-depth discussion about her activism style, racism, sexism, and the power of social media in sources like Time magazine, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, BBC, NPR, The Wall Street Journal, etc., which is a notable achievement in itself. Stephen Colbert was forced to respond to the #CancelColbert incident. All these indicate that she made an impact through her twitter activism. This is not WP:BLP1E either, since her #NotYourAsianSidekick was also covered in The Washington Post. She was prominently quoted in the BuzzFeed article about the recent twitter outrage at the University of Illinois against the Chancellor when she didn't grant a snow day, and this article led to discussion on the issues of racism and sexism in sources like Inside Higher Ed (amongst many others), and a response from the Chancellor herself.
 * Thus, Park is notable, and as the person who started hashtag activism and has already been able to attract attention and spark discussion several times through this new activism method, WP:BLP1E does not apply. Therefore, this article should be kept. AlmostGrad (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Claiming that she essentially started hashtag activism is unsupported by the sources and by the previous documented history of internet activism. With regard to the University of Illinois incident she was one of a half dozen students whose twitter posts were quoted in an article and had a letter to the editor published as part of another article. Neither of those mentions is a claim to notability.
 * The entirety of her claim to fame comes down to several twitter posts shared with a relatively small contingent of twitter users and reported on as a. part of a wider movement and b. the effect it had on a notable TV program.
 * Looking over your posts it appears that you attend the University of Illinois. Do you have a personal relationship with the article's subject? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would caution using "hashtag activism" in regards to her, as there are some good articles discussing how that term is rather demeaning., rather than outright deletion, would you be interested in redirecting this page into something along the lines that would cover Internet activism and hashtagging? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. This story, as I previously mentioned, is best suited as an example or footnote in the history of twitter/internet activism. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Just because an avowed racist trends on multimedia, doesn't mean s/he necessarily meets the WP:Notability requirements. I really think something of substance (an act of creation, change, etc.) is a minimum, not just a trending. Already, her limelight seems to be fading, kept fresh only with new and shocking tweets. We don't record everything Malkin or Palin 'rage' about and they /are/ notable for other accomplishments.LeyteWolfer (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep BLP1E doesn't apply here because Park is not a low-profile individual dragged into the spotlight because of some random event. All three of the conditions listed must be met for the policy to apply and that's not the case here.  Furthermore, and this is the stronger argument, Park meets the GNG because she's been the subject of multiple articles at different times for different reasons.  For instance while at the U of IL she was in the Chicago news for anti-Chief Illiniwek activism.  I've added this to the article.  The source is not just a passing mention, either, but discusses her role (and some other person's) at pretty great length.  So this plus the twitter stuff seems to me to say she meets the GNG.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the articles written about her are online only articles and only reference her in relation to other incidents. She's not notable in of herself; only as part of other topics like twitter, etc. BlueLotusLK (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: between #notyourasiansidekick and #cancelcolbert, she's been covered by the national media for two separate events. The subject certainly qualifies as having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Orser67 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not events, two popular hashtags. There are many twitter users who have spawned dozens of popular hashtags which were covered by Buzzfeed and other online media aggregators, that does not necessarily make them notable. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete She is just a minor twitter user in an unmanageable sea of twitter users. At some point she may do something actually of note, but having hash-tags trend isn't it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability is not inherited. The focus of the coverage is predominately on the hashtags and the discussion on them, and not on Suey Park.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Ehhhhh, I'm not seeing that much notability here. She seems like just another feminist woman that overreacted to a simple joke (and before anyone screams MISOGYNY! at me, I'm a woman myself.) She's almost guaranteed to be completely forgotten after this, thus BLP1E applies. --YasminPerry (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Returning blocked user, now blocked as a sock. Spartaz Humbug! 19:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Delete I don't see her notability. She created a hashtag? She received threats? She has a huge following? Many of the news articles only mention her in passing, rather than at length. Ging287 (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, that IP was me. --YasminPerry (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete the hashtags get covered, but she barely does, and when she does it's just fluff.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Rename to Hashtag acivism and expand. The causes are noteworthy.  I'm not convinced, at this point, that the person is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Marginally notable only for a single incident, so it's BLP1E.  She needs to wait until her next drama-mongering incident to get an article.  Bueller 007 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep She's getting a fair bit of coverage in mainstream news and magazines. ScienceApe (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'DELETE It is not in anyone's interest to reward mentally unstable online trolls. This person has NO credentials. She is just an angry asian with a twitter account. If her behavior warrants a wiki page, then the cashier at my local burger king also qualifies. If everyone gets a wikipedia page, we might as well just rename wikipedia "the innernets".
 * Delete: Her 15 minutes are up, and she didn't deserve them in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.153.242 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Mentioned in passing in all of the attached references. Doesn't meet WP:Notability.  ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 07:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:Notability (as has already been pointed out). This individual having their own entry is beyond ridiculous. Partyclams (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete twitter activists are not inherently relevant. Northern Antarctica  ₵  22:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Having a couple hashtags trend wouldn't make it notable to mention on an existing person's entry, it certainly doesn't warrant one all on its own. --TheTruthiness (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2014 (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.