Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Taylor (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is that this is a WP:BLP1E issue. This means that the recreation of the article is possible if new relevant sources appear that confer notability independently from the recent affair. The "keep" opinions are weakly argued because most do not address the BLP1E issue, but rather relatively unimportant procedural concerns, and must therefore be given less weight in assessing consensus.  Sandstein  17:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Victoria Taylor
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Re-proposing for AfD in light of recent events. Recently Ellen Pao has resigned as Reddit's CEO and was replaced by Steve Huffman - the article has had details merged to and the AMA section and the controversy section. Content on the handover and catalyst for it also belongs on the Steve Huffman page more than here, as the CEO is higher profile and has inherited his predecessor's issues. Issues with the way that the Reddit administrators were non-communicative to the volunteer moderators more belongs on the page about Pao or Reddit#controversies - Taylor's firing was the catalyst, but there were longstanding issues with volunteers having their software break.

Reasons for deletion:
 * Fails BLP1E as the commercial activity on Reddit, celebrity interviews and advice for journalists are all the same company.
 * The firing of Pao is bigger news than Taylor's dismissal. Future notability for Taylor is not a factor to consider per CRYSTAL - the events this month have shown that other figures factor more notably in the current issue than Taylor herself. Per COATRACK the Taylor article doesn't go into depth about Pao's leadership or Huffman's takeover.
 * Content has already been merged to Reddit and details on controversies can be added to Ellen Pao and Steve Huffman as they are more notable figures with articles that can easily be expanded. Content that is only tangentially related to Taylor is a better fit for the reddit article itself.
 * There is no material left on the page to merge elsewhere.

-- Callinus (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Some details on Taylor, such as her alma mater, might not be interesting to readers in 10 years, and so fails the RECENTISM test as including too much undue material of temporary interest as related to current events that may not be interesting to readers in future(Not a newspaper).
 * Previous AfD had extensive stealth canvassing as some users noted in the AfD.
 * Previous edits to the article include BLP violations and violations of off-site harassment policy. Keeping the content on this article serves little public interest under the current circumstances (with the CEO changing hands being bigger news) and the risk of addition of BLP violations is not justified when content on the CEO changing hands and Taylor's dismissal is covered in further depth elsewhere.
 * Note to closing administrator - Due to the risk of stealth canvassing, admin should discount !votes that have no justification, or come from users with less than 10 edits. Merge votes are invalid as no content is on the page to be merged - these should be counted as delete.
 * BTW, I chose Merge because both this article and Reddit are very fluid at the moment, and there is no predicting the status of these articles by the time this AFD closes. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  11:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: This discussion probably won't lead to a consensus - the last one was closed as no consensus. Let someone tip the scale first before renominating - AfD is not an overnight cleanup service, so article issues belong on the talk page. I don't see how the subject's alma mater counts as "recentism". Esquivalience t 02:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * what do you mean tip the scale? I've performed a merger of most of the article contents. See 's quote ""merge" implies some information is in the article that isn't in the other articles"


 * in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Victoria Taylor. You really also should adress the fact that Pao has quit following most of the keep and merge votes in the original AfD, and the fact that substantial sections of the article have been merged. "article issues belong on the talk page" - the issues in question are DUE and BLP1E - substantial detail has been merged to the reddit article and the BLP1E issue remains. -- Callinus (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean that you should wait for a few months so that a deletion discussion doesn't result in no consensus, or gain consensus for a merge and redirect (unless you want to go for a silence and consensus, which is a long shot) on the talk page if there's a pressing reason to - AfD does not stand for articles for discussion; the talk page is much more versatile and suitable for your concern. Esquivalience t 02:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * what part of the article is not already merged to and  ? Which part of the material that I added to the article, then merged elsewhere needs discussion on talk? -- Callinus (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:IAR, WP:BOLD/SOFIXIT I went ahead and merged the material that I myself added to the article - there's no requirement for consensus to remove the material that I myself added and nobody modified, the material I added has been merged. -- Callinus (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You already did the merging; if you want to do the redirecting, I'm just suggesting that you wait so that the scale is tipped (i.e. towards a definite outcome) or discuss on the talk page. Esquivalience t 02:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've discussed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Victoria Taylor and sent an email to the admin who closed the first AfD notifying them of BLP violations and linking to off-site harassment that strongly violates important policies. That's the big issue that's changed and why the article needs re-nominating. -- Callinus (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: You say the last AfD failed due to canvassing? If that's the case, the only difference now is that a few days have passed. Reddit users are too stubborn to let that stop them. Ordinarily, I would wait a month. However, two months may be better in this case since a flurry of edits will happen when the Ellen Pao article becomes open again. Also, even though you worked on this article extensively, I'm alarmed that you have turned to purging the article that you now want deleted. For example, instead of copying my sentence about two analyses to the reddit article, you moved it. This will certainly belong in Victoria's article if it survives. Also for a biographical statement that is not suitable for merging, you removed the source but not the statement. Why do this? The only reason I can think of is that making the article look poorly sourced helps the deletion request. Connor Behan (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * not speedyI think this will need a discussion, not a speedy keep. A non-consensus close can be renominated almost immediately, tho it is not necessarily a good idea. Whether the potential for vandalism justifies a deletion can be argued either way. We do have various ways of protecting articles. For that matter, we also can semi-protect an afd discussion, tho I am a little reluctant to do it in advance of disruption. But if any other admin think it appropriate, I have no  objection.    DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ^ The "no consensus" is seriously flawed as there is clear consensus for all the merge criteria. It was a lazy analysis that didn't discount SPA IPs nor did it analyze which points had clear consensus.  Really, the argument was about how much of the current article is replicated in the other articles.  This made the logic that "delete/merge/redirect" were separate arguments a specious claim.  The only question was whether there needed to be a merge or a straight redirect.  There was a clear consensus that the "keep" criteria failed and merge was the very minimum by a 2 to 1 margin.  I am considering contesting the flawed close.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: This ridiculously quick renomination after the last AfD ended in 'no consensus' feels a bit like sour grapes. The fact to the matter is that Victoria Taylor's dismissal affected millions of people when most of reddit's most popular forums were shut down in protest of her dismissal and how it had been made. 90.44.86.196 (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge into Reddit - If Victoria was not notable enough for an article before she was fired, simply being fired from a job doesn't make her so. The circumstances of her firing are certainly interesting enough for inclusion in the Reddit article, but not notable enough for an article of their own, especially under the guise of a BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle Milty (talk • contribs)
 * Merge or Delete or Redirect - nothing independent here. This BLP is for one event: her firing.  It's arguably only negative and even "No consensus" should close with delete based on that alone.   Merge was the consensus from the last AfD but closer did not evaluate it properly.  Overwhelming number of Delete/Merge/Redirect comments swamped the page.  Those are all requests that the article be stripped of content.  The only decision was whether article history should remain or whether it should be deleted or redirect.  In that case, consensus was to Merge since that is action that fits the comments.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel that this article is indeed notable per Wikipedia policy. I won't hide the fact that I myself am a redditor, but I feel as if my rationale is valid. She is notable for what happened to her; and her long standing work for the reddit community that is just now being recognized as her absence is felt. I feel like we could indeed make this BLP about more than her firing from reddit; and it well should be! We just need to be BOLD in doing so, and actually research more about her. There's plenty notable about her seeing as how she's spent lots of time with celebrities and such in her capacity at reddit. We just need to make it more about the good things she did, not the bad things that happened to her. Now whether or not we can actually be neutral about that and guarantee this will be a quality article is another thing; and I'm all for semi-protection or even full protection of the article at least until reddit cools down about this event. I'm all for everything we can do per wikipedia policy to ensure this is a quality article. Melody Concertotalk 05:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply to her article due to BLP1E's criteria 3. Her role in the overall story is substantial and well documented particularly given the massive media coverage mentioning her by name like this Mother Jones article that even uses her name in its article URL. 90.44.86.196 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC) — 90.44.86.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * She had no documented role in any of it which means criteria 3 is satisfied. We don't even know what she has done to that led to her dismissal.  Boston Bombing victims, for example, played a role but it's passive and a single event so unless something else happens, it fits BLP1E and we don't have articles on the bombing victims unless something else makes them notable.  This controversy has already moved on because the focus is on Reddit, not Taylor.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * CNBC, 9 Hours ago with her name prominently in the article title: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/14/details-emerge-about-victoria-taylors-reddit-dismissal.html do you have a more convincing argument? 90.44.86.196 (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Who cares how many times her name is thrown out in a single event? She is a passive pawn in the history of reddit, not a significant individual.  You still haven't come up with anything that she's done that precipitated the event other than a name for who was fired.  That article you cite that has her name in title isn't about her, it's about the executives above her.  Notice the pictures and the quotes.  Hmmm.  None about her.  The clue is the lack of detail about her and all the speculation about those with power and why those with power did something.  Nothing to do with her specifically, though.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the ridiculously significant coverage the story of her firing and the role she played in the subsequent meltdown of reddit it is quite obvious that her notability is not temporary, anytime there's going to be a significant shakeup/kerfuffle at reddit her name will come up. Given that is true then it is logical that there should be an article about her, she as a subject is now of encyclopedic merit. I read in your comments this tendency to discount her role in this and minimize the impact she had in essentially shutting down reddit but that is a false view. 90.44.86.196 (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What role did she play in shutting down reddit? She didn't say or do anything.  Are you saying she coordinated the shutdown?  Are you saying she led the call for the reassignment of the founder and also the CEO?  Source? For similar treatment see Meredith Kercher (that is notable for passive role in an event, she is the namesake of the event, not biography) and Amanda Knox (active role, has a biography) - the active participants such as the founder that fired her and the CEO that resigned, have biographies.   --DHeyward (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note as well that Steve Huffman has just three short paragraphs on him with only 8 references, despite being a co-founder of the company and the current CEO. One would think that discussion of controversy is more applicable on the page of the CEOs or co-founders rather than former mid level employees (who had no control over the site's messaging to users, unlike CEOs and co-founders ("Popcorn tastes good")). -- Callinus (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Notable only for one event. She is already out of the news and will soon be forgotten. There is no reason for her to be in an encyclopedia. Comet1440  ( talk ) 17:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As the IP above mentions, she's not out of the news yet. I'm actually wondering if this deletion request itself will make the news in some way. Connor Behan (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete (changed from Keep in previous AFD) - I participated in the first AFD where I argued to Keep this article. Looking at it again, I may have been a bit hasty: outside of the news coverage related to the recent controversy, there's very little specifically about Taylor in reliable sources. I think now she's basically a non-notable person who was briefly caught up in a public controversy, but isn't worthy of a Wikipedia biography in her own right. There's no need to merge, as the information about her firing is adequately covered in other articles. Robofish (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS. Sorry, but Reddit is not that big a deal in most people's lives; my mother wouldn't know what it was. If newspapers are still discussing this in 5 years' time, we can revisit an article then. In the meantime, what possible benefit can the existence of this article have on the sum of the world's knowledge? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  07:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the others stating WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, she is only known for that one Reddit event. And it wasn't that big of an event, it has pretty much disappeared from the news by now. Other mentions of her in news sources before that event were typical of the job position she held, it's not like her former co-workers of the same level also have articles. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I just found out that there isn't even an article about the event itself, is Taylor really more notable than the whole Reddit-CEO issue (which her coincidental involvement in is the only reason there is an article of her in the first place)? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The article will become more relevant and better references as the event unfolds. -- Dandv  04:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The event is over. How much more "unfolding" could it do? -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  06:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the deletes have it. The reason I wish this would stay up is that this isn't a briefly infamous person who slept with a politician or made an offensive tweet or what have you. Taylor's one event was being fired after being loved by the Internet. Perhaps this will inspire further stories, but as Ritchie333 says, I'll check back in 5 years. Connor Behan (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "after being loved by the Internet" - for about 24 hours before online conversations shifted to the core issues with Reddit, like the role of the CEOs and co-founders, and the site's vexed relationship with objectionable speech and advertisers. The BLP violations on the page means it is not purely positive - BLP articles are vulnerable to vandalism and abuse, and there's really no reason to open this woman up to defamation accusations over the next 10 years when her role in the CEO being replaced with the site's co-founder won't be the biggest part of the story in 10 years. -- Callinus (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Victoria Taylor is still in the news. The Daily Mail just published this story a few hours ago featuring more of Ms. Taylor's part in these developments and also additional video of her talking about her role and Gender parity at reddit back in 2013. It is obvious that there will be documentaries made about reddit and in those documentaries when they cover reddit's history Victoria Taylor will be mentioned. Again, she is notable now and and article about her has encyclopedic merit. 90.44.86.196 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That Daily Mail article has very poor fact checking. Connor Behan (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the BBC Academy video to the BLP article weeks ago - The Daily Mail is copying and pasting from the Wikipedia article (WP:CITOGENISIS/Churnalism). The DM article is from 7 July - this was before the Ohanian/Yishan revelations on 12 July, meaning that Taylor is no longer the driving force in the story, but rather, it's about Ohanian, Pao, Yishan and Huffman. Note that Bethanye Blount does not have a BLP page, despite being a former chief engineer (another mid level employee) -- Callinus (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What is partially remarkable is Taylor is getting to be notable enough that The Daily Mail is actually paying someone for candid photos of her out in public. 90.44.86.196 (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete — I'd like to start by saying I was the nominator of the previous AfD, and my rationale from the last discussion still stands. I switched to "merge" at the last discussion because there was a lot of content that was added after I nominated which focused on Reddit, but since much of the content I thought could be merged has already been added to the Reddit article by Callinus (thanks!), this article can be deleted. The topic falls under WP:BLP1E, which is a Wikipedia policy that exists to preserve the privacy of real-life, living, low-profile individuals who are only notable for one event. Taylor qualifies as a low-profile individual in all prongs of the essay WP:LOWPROFILE: the overwhelming majority of media appearances and promotional activities consisted of Taylor acting as a "mouthpiece" or a spokesperson for Reddit, not herself, and she doesn't purport herself to be a figure of eminence. With regards to the third criterion of BLP1E, her role in the event can be summed up adequately at the Reddit article—she played no other role other than getting dismissed (it is the reaction of the Reddit community to her dismissal that is notable, not Taylor). And finally, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Being in the news or being covered by newspapers in relation to one event does not necessarily make a living person suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mz7 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with other delete reasons cited above. Entry is not encyclopedic. Notypos (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2015 (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.