![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on March 8, 2020. The result of the discussion was Delete. |
Frequently asked questions
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(copied comment from the draft page)
Was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily VanDerWerff in March. Haven't looked at the sources in detail, but it seems the only new coverage which might count towards WP:GNG is this piece from July. If there is other coverage, it would be quite helpful it it were pointed out on the talk page. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
These represent new coverage since July references represent new coverage since July:
This new coverage, along with additional emphasis and cited coverage of VanDerWerff as a prominent transgender woman, contribute to her being a notable person. Her role in the controversy over the Harper's Letter received extensive coverage in third party news sites. So the overall case for her notability would be that she has a significant body of television criticism comparable or exceeding other critics with existing articles, has a published book with a major publisher, is one of if not the most well-known transgender arts critics in the US, and has been the subject of mainstream news coverage. -- Markgbaker ( talk) 23:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
There are other sources that cover the info in 3 and 4 that she appears in more prominently, so I can switch those. And there are more articles about her work as a TV critic under her former name that can be included if it will help. Is there a critical mass point for coverage when simply the amount of mentions becomes significant? The significant coverage is fairly subjective. Markgbaker ( talk) 17:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Added a cited article where VanDerWerff is prominently featured as an influential TV critic (Herman, Alison (2018-07-31). "Previously On: How Recaps Changed the Way We Watch Television". The Ringer. Retrieved 2020-09-18) and replaced another citation with an article that focuses on her role in the Harper's Letter controversy more prominently. (Sheets, Megan (2020-07-09). "Twitter feud breaks out among Vox staffers after editor joins JK Rowling and Margaret Atwood and signs an open letter condemning 'cancel culture'". The Daily Mail. Retrieved 2020-09-18) Markgbaker ( talk) 18:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The subject's birth name has been removed, referencing WP:DEADNAME, saying the subject was not notable under that name. And yet, 3/5 of the career section describes events that happened before her transition. While she didn't have a Wikipedia article until recently, it seems the subject would have been considered notable enough to have one and it's not just the more recent events that pushed her into notability. Fnordware ( talk) 08:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Had my edit adding the subject's previous name reverted and directing me to this page. I wasn't aware of the ongoing discussion here when I made the edit. However, having read it I don't believe a consensus has been reached that her previous name should be removed, and I believe the suggestion that the subject was not notable under her previous name is dubious. The _Career_ section of this article contains citations for a decade of writing under her previous name, including senior editorial positions at major news and entertainment websites (AV Club and Vox) and a commercially published book. There is also a citation of an interview with the subject regarding her transition, which arguably would not exist if she wasn't somewhat notable pre-transition. I think there is enough material here to establish notability under her previous name, so, respectfully, I am reinstating my edit. Feel free to discuss further. carelesshx talk 21:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily VanDerWerff established consensus that VanDerWerff was not notable slightly subsequent to transition, let alone prior, and you cannot overturn this consensus by just your own argumentation. These are the only two facts we need to establish consensus against the specific edit you made, which added the birth name to the lead sentence, and citations and due weight are irrelevant because they are superceded in this particular case by MOS:DEADNAME. You'll notice that I don't even particularly agree that it is best to omit the name. Yet policy is incredibly clear in this matter. It even says
If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it(emphasis mine). — Bilorv ( talk) 21:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
A deletion outcome from AfD means that the article as it stood at the time did not establish notabilityis almost exactly the opposite to how I would describe AfD in a sentence if asked. The purpose is to assess notability. See WP:BEFORE, WP:AADD etc. I see from this that you've not really participated in AfD much since 2007, carelesshx, so perhaps standards have changed—for instance, the most recent AfD I began ( 1) was kept on the strength of sources not in the article at the time (and shows a failure on my part to find them before nominating). Nonetheless, if you'd like to argue notability prior to VanDerWerff's transition then could you present the sources and rationale clearly? I don't really follow your argument in the detail you've given. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
[n]otability is a cumulative situation); and this proof justifies omitting the subject's previous name from this article. I disagree, for the following reasons: First, the decision in March 2020 was extremely marginal, and the AfD had to be relisted twice. It can hardly be described as conclusive. Second, the decision to remove was because
the existing sources ... are not substantial enough to base an article on. I can't judge this for myself because I can't see the old article. It's clear that the outcome was based on the lack of citations in the article, rather than the "inherent notability" of the subject. Third, most of the sources cited in this article would have been available in February 2020, which suggests that the decision itself might not be sound (again, I can't judge for myself because I can't see the previous article). I argue that, for the reasons I have set out, the AfD outcome of March 2020 (on a previous article) does not justify omitting the subject's previous name on the grounds of lack of notability.
If you'd like to argue notability prior to VanDerWerff's transition then could you present the sources and rationale clearly. On this point, the evidence is the same as I mentioned earlier: the citations already in the article are enough to establish notability over a ten-year writing career up to the time of her coming out in 2019. Finally, on a different point, the argument that it is necessary to omit her previous name on the grounds of privacy fails because she is credited as Emily Todd VanDerWerff at Vox (her current employer) and AV Club (where she wrote previously). I can only assume that this is with her consent. carelesshx talk 01:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
It's clear that the outcome was based on the lack of citations in the article, rather than the "inherent notability" of the subjectbecause I would expect that if more citations existed then someone would have introduced them to either the discussion or article as part of the research that AfD contributors are expected to do.
Should the article include the subject's previous name in the opening paragraph? This has been omitted citing
WP:DEADNAME because a previous version of this article was deleted. Does the fact that a previous version was deleted prove that the subject was not notable at the time? If so, does this proof satisfy
WP:DEADNAME, specifically that the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name
?
Previous discussion of this question starts above. Here is a revision showing how it might appear. carelesshx talk 16:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article), which I don't see here, and definitely not in the lead sentence. — Bilorv ( talk) 17:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Pretty sure this is a "DUDE". CapitalED ( talk) 01:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Given that she is now using the name St. James as a professional, it seems that this name should be incorporated into the article and perhaps the article should even be moved. [1] Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm surprised to be reverted on this but there you go. In dispute over the parenthetical (born Emily Nicole VanDerWerff, November 30, 1982)
vs. (formerly Emily Nicole VanDerWerff; born November 30, 1982)
, I wrote that [The former] is untrue - St. James birthname was not "Emily"
, while
92.10.13.209 wrote that She was assigned male at birth but she was always female - and when she came out she chose Emily as her name. Ergo, she was born Emily as her assigned name was never her name - simply what she was assigned. Please discuss before reverting this time
.
St. James was not born with the name "Emily". It's as simple as that. You could say that she was "always female" or "her assigned name was never her real name" or even "her real name, Emily, chose her", though not all trans people identify with this narrow interpretation, but you simply cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that somebody was "born" with a name that they chose in their late 30s. Can we get a third opinion to resolve this? — Bilorv ( talk) 08:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. We use "born as" for legal names assigned shortly after birth, not for random names, legal or otherwise, that a person has been known as. We use "known as" for those.Newimpartial ( talk) 12:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Since issues about this have come up on the talk page, I propose the following editnotice(s):
expiry=indefinite
text=The author has previously published under other names and consensus is against inserting all of those names. Please see the talk page for more information and do not add all previous names without prior consensus.
Note that there is an editnotice here to this effect, but I added it in spite of an editing restriction that I had forgotten about. I have requested the template's deletion and am seeking prior consent to recreation per the restriction's requirements. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on March 8, 2020. The result of the discussion was Delete. |
Frequently asked questions
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(copied comment from the draft page)
Was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily VanDerWerff in March. Haven't looked at the sources in detail, but it seems the only new coverage which might count towards WP:GNG is this piece from July. If there is other coverage, it would be quite helpful it it were pointed out on the talk page. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
These represent new coverage since July references represent new coverage since July:
This new coverage, along with additional emphasis and cited coverage of VanDerWerff as a prominent transgender woman, contribute to her being a notable person. Her role in the controversy over the Harper's Letter received extensive coverage in third party news sites. So the overall case for her notability would be that she has a significant body of television criticism comparable or exceeding other critics with existing articles, has a published book with a major publisher, is one of if not the most well-known transgender arts critics in the US, and has been the subject of mainstream news coverage. -- Markgbaker ( talk) 23:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
There are other sources that cover the info in 3 and 4 that she appears in more prominently, so I can switch those. And there are more articles about her work as a TV critic under her former name that can be included if it will help. Is there a critical mass point for coverage when simply the amount of mentions becomes significant? The significant coverage is fairly subjective. Markgbaker ( talk) 17:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Added a cited article where VanDerWerff is prominently featured as an influential TV critic (Herman, Alison (2018-07-31). "Previously On: How Recaps Changed the Way We Watch Television". The Ringer. Retrieved 2020-09-18) and replaced another citation with an article that focuses on her role in the Harper's Letter controversy more prominently. (Sheets, Megan (2020-07-09). "Twitter feud breaks out among Vox staffers after editor joins JK Rowling and Margaret Atwood and signs an open letter condemning 'cancel culture'". The Daily Mail. Retrieved 2020-09-18) Markgbaker ( talk) 18:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The subject's birth name has been removed, referencing WP:DEADNAME, saying the subject was not notable under that name. And yet, 3/5 of the career section describes events that happened before her transition. While she didn't have a Wikipedia article until recently, it seems the subject would have been considered notable enough to have one and it's not just the more recent events that pushed her into notability. Fnordware ( talk) 08:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Had my edit adding the subject's previous name reverted and directing me to this page. I wasn't aware of the ongoing discussion here when I made the edit. However, having read it I don't believe a consensus has been reached that her previous name should be removed, and I believe the suggestion that the subject was not notable under her previous name is dubious. The _Career_ section of this article contains citations for a decade of writing under her previous name, including senior editorial positions at major news and entertainment websites (AV Club and Vox) and a commercially published book. There is also a citation of an interview with the subject regarding her transition, which arguably would not exist if she wasn't somewhat notable pre-transition. I think there is enough material here to establish notability under her previous name, so, respectfully, I am reinstating my edit. Feel free to discuss further. carelesshx talk 21:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily VanDerWerff established consensus that VanDerWerff was not notable slightly subsequent to transition, let alone prior, and you cannot overturn this consensus by just your own argumentation. These are the only two facts we need to establish consensus against the specific edit you made, which added the birth name to the lead sentence, and citations and due weight are irrelevant because they are superceded in this particular case by MOS:DEADNAME. You'll notice that I don't even particularly agree that it is best to omit the name. Yet policy is incredibly clear in this matter. It even says
If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it(emphasis mine). — Bilorv ( talk) 21:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
A deletion outcome from AfD means that the article as it stood at the time did not establish notabilityis almost exactly the opposite to how I would describe AfD in a sentence if asked. The purpose is to assess notability. See WP:BEFORE, WP:AADD etc. I see from this that you've not really participated in AfD much since 2007, carelesshx, so perhaps standards have changed—for instance, the most recent AfD I began ( 1) was kept on the strength of sources not in the article at the time (and shows a failure on my part to find them before nominating). Nonetheless, if you'd like to argue notability prior to VanDerWerff's transition then could you present the sources and rationale clearly? I don't really follow your argument in the detail you've given. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
[n]otability is a cumulative situation); and this proof justifies omitting the subject's previous name from this article. I disagree, for the following reasons: First, the decision in March 2020 was extremely marginal, and the AfD had to be relisted twice. It can hardly be described as conclusive. Second, the decision to remove was because
the existing sources ... are not substantial enough to base an article on. I can't judge this for myself because I can't see the old article. It's clear that the outcome was based on the lack of citations in the article, rather than the "inherent notability" of the subject. Third, most of the sources cited in this article would have been available in February 2020, which suggests that the decision itself might not be sound (again, I can't judge for myself because I can't see the previous article). I argue that, for the reasons I have set out, the AfD outcome of March 2020 (on a previous article) does not justify omitting the subject's previous name on the grounds of lack of notability.
If you'd like to argue notability prior to VanDerWerff's transition then could you present the sources and rationale clearly. On this point, the evidence is the same as I mentioned earlier: the citations already in the article are enough to establish notability over a ten-year writing career up to the time of her coming out in 2019. Finally, on a different point, the argument that it is necessary to omit her previous name on the grounds of privacy fails because she is credited as Emily Todd VanDerWerff at Vox (her current employer) and AV Club (where she wrote previously). I can only assume that this is with her consent. carelesshx talk 01:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
It's clear that the outcome was based on the lack of citations in the article, rather than the "inherent notability" of the subjectbecause I would expect that if more citations existed then someone would have introduced them to either the discussion or article as part of the research that AfD contributors are expected to do.
Should the article include the subject's previous name in the opening paragraph? This has been omitted citing
WP:DEADNAME because a previous version of this article was deleted. Does the fact that a previous version was deleted prove that the subject was not notable at the time? If so, does this proof satisfy
WP:DEADNAME, specifically that the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name
?
Previous discussion of this question starts above. Here is a revision showing how it might appear. carelesshx talk 16:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article), which I don't see here, and definitely not in the lead sentence. — Bilorv ( talk) 17:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Pretty sure this is a "DUDE". CapitalED ( talk) 01:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Given that she is now using the name St. James as a professional, it seems that this name should be incorporated into the article and perhaps the article should even be moved. [1] Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm surprised to be reverted on this but there you go. In dispute over the parenthetical (born Emily Nicole VanDerWerff, November 30, 1982)
vs. (formerly Emily Nicole VanDerWerff; born November 30, 1982)
, I wrote that [The former] is untrue - St. James birthname was not "Emily"
, while
92.10.13.209 wrote that She was assigned male at birth but she was always female - and when she came out she chose Emily as her name. Ergo, she was born Emily as her assigned name was never her name - simply what she was assigned. Please discuss before reverting this time
.
St. James was not born with the name "Emily". It's as simple as that. You could say that she was "always female" or "her assigned name was never her real name" or even "her real name, Emily, chose her", though not all trans people identify with this narrow interpretation, but you simply cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that somebody was "born" with a name that they chose in their late 30s. Can we get a third opinion to resolve this? — Bilorv ( talk) 08:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. We use "born as" for legal names assigned shortly after birth, not for random names, legal or otherwise, that a person has been known as. We use "known as" for those.Newimpartial ( talk) 12:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Since issues about this have come up on the talk page, I propose the following editnotice(s):
expiry=indefinite
text=The author has previously published under other names and consensus is against inserting all of those names. Please see the talk page for more information and do not add all previous names without prior consensus.
Note that there is an editnotice here to this effect, but I added it in spite of an editing restriction that I had forgotten about. I have requested the template's deletion and am seeking prior consent to recreation per the restriction's requirements. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)