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 the article qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E. North America1000 06:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being hounded by antivax people isn't terribly notable, her career is unremarkable, rest could be briefly covered in any number of Covid articles. I'm not seeing BLP, or simple GNG. Her fainting event was non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this story was giant news and covered in the big media. Here on MSNBC Chris Haye's show.[1]. This was beyond being "hounded by antivax people". Sgerbic (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a very RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that she is mainly notable for one event, but WP:BLP1E is a tool for deciding between an event article or a biographical article, so the correct conclusion to the BLP1E test is to keep this as an event article. I think there is plenty reliable sources that cover her fainting. CT55555(talk) 00:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the correct way to use "the BLP1E test" here is to delete the article. From WP:BLP1E: Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met. Walt Yoder (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you click through to the further guidance WP:BIO1E and read the first line, it makes it abundantly clear what the guidance is about When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both and you'll note the three possible outcomes. CT55555(talk) 01:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. - I don't see how you can read that page and think it supports the argument that low-profile individuals tangentially involved in one event (by being harassed) should have more coverage here. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People who do a media interview are not WP:LOWPROFILE. See:
There is nothing sensationalist about articles that disprove misinformation. That is the opposite of sensationalism.
I see that you don't follow my argument. That's OK. Let's agree to differ, let others opine, and let who ever closes the discussion judge our arguments on their merits. It's time to give space to others, so I hope we can leave this with an agreement to disagree, noting WP:BLUDGEON. CT55555(talk) 16:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my keep, having been persuaded by @Beccaynr's comment below. CT55555(talk) 20:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep. BLP1E employs the concept of "low-profile individual" (criteria 2) for exclusion. I believe Dover no longer meets that criteria, as she started to proactively interact with the national media two weeks ago. Re-reading the guidance, I see the policy is meant to protect people who don't wish to be in the limelight. Given the amplitude of the coverage by RS sources over more than two years and the different angles the story took (initial event; her own reaction and the hospital's; the increasing number of people affected over time; Dover talking about the story 2 years later), I think we have a wikipedia article.
Part of the difficulty is naming the article after the person rather than an event, but I wasn't able to find something more satisfactory. I fiddled with "Tiffany Dover affair" and others, but none of the sources provide alternatives. Robincantin (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I suggest renaming to something like Tiffany Dover vaccine death conspiracy. When CT55555 suggested that WP:BLP1E was about deciding between an event article or a biographical article, they were likely referring to its section hatnote article: WP:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. There, it gives the example of Travis Walton UFO incident as an event article name, rather than a BLP. That may be more appropriate here. Dover's fainting event was made famous not only by the anti-vaxxers but also by anyone who just didn't want to get a 'new' COVID-19 vaccine and those railing against mandatory vaccinations (even though they routinely get other vaccines and wouldn't be characterized as anti-vaxxers). It was forwarded as 'truth' by not an insignificant number of 'media'. There was a proliferation of false information spread about this event and everyone was affected by it. The topic passes WP:GNG and WP:Notability (events). The event had lasting repercussions that affected a large population, and geographic area (the entire USA, if not further afield). The proliferation of false information about the event spawned a lot of coverage by mainstream media (reliable sources) in order to denounce the false information. The false claims [2] and the counter-coverage persisted over a long period of time, and are still in play today, over two years later. Therefore my suggestion to 'keep' and rename to an event title such as Tiffany Dover vaccine death conspiracy. Grorp (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. We do not need standalone articles on every minor conspiratorial media blip propagated by conservatives, especially not when they're BLPs. JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't appear to be much info that could be merged. JoelleJay (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:DEL#REASON#9 - this article appears to breach WP:BLP policy and there does not appear to be a suitable merge target - the harassment of an individual, their family, and workplace does not appear WP:DUE or BLP-compliant in potentially related articles. Per WP:AVOIDVICTIM, this living person appears to have been the subject of news coverage 'largely or entirely from being a victim of another's actions', and Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. The intro to BLP policy cautions "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The harassment of a living person, her family, and her workplace also does not appear to be a notable WP:EVENT, per the guidelines to help determine whether content should be excluded as WP:NOTNEWS - for this harassment of a living person, her family, and her workplace, there does not appear to be a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance, or a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group. The initial burst of coverage (Dec 2020/Jan 2021), one Politifact source (Oct 2021) and a small flurry of coverage related to her recent NBC News interview seems closer to the WP:SENSATIONAL coverage we are cautioned against using for event and BLP articles. Also, this subject does not appear to be a "media personality" as discussed in the WP:LOWPROFILE essay, and one recent interview does not seem to fit the overall pattern of high-profile activity described in the essay; the available sources indicate this is also WP:BLP1E, so WP:NOTNEWS further supports deletion. Beccaynr (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mainly per Beccaynr. WP:DEL-REASON gives Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons as a reason for deletion - there are WP:BLP concerns here. WP:1E, from the notability guideline also says avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. --Tristario (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a low profile individual who doesn't need this article hanging around her neck for the rest of her life. Clear WP:BLP1E for a low-profile individual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Beccaynr, and the article fails WP:BLP1E. Isi96 (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is clearly a BLP1E. // Timothy :: talk 11:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her name possibly bears mention in a few articles on COVID 19 and/or the vaccine but there's not enough here to hang an article on. --Jayron32 12:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts', as described in WP:BLPNAME, could potentially help support a mention of the event in other potentially-related articles, but we do not seem to have that quality or quantity of sourcing available at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.