Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Knight

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 discarding the clearly canvassed votes, and the views not based on P&G (or incorrectly based on them), we're left with no consensus either way. Since the subject of the article chose a public life, arguments for privacy have limited weight here. Broad participation, including by some of the project's most experienced editors, makes it unlikely relisting will bring about a consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Knight

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Aimee Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hi, I’ve nominated this page for deletion as I’m not sure whether they are relevant enough to warrant an entire wikipedia page, politicians who’ve stood for election and lost with less than 2% of the vote don’t generally get Wikipedia pages, especially when they’ve done nothing of much note after the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxisediting (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPF doesn't offer much definition of who counts as an NPF, but links to WP:LOWPROFILE. That says Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Knight today does not seek out media attention, but from 2015-8, she was an active campaigner and political candidate, clearly repeatedly seeking media attention. Ergo, she does not come under WP:NPF. Bondegezou (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin delete this comment and block this person for using such a language! FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only "problem" with the redaction is that it proved my point that there are massive WP:NPF concerns with this article, which is about a non-public figure. SportingFlyer T·C 13:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a numerical consensus to Keep, they are weak Keeps with no reference to policy or sources. Also most participants have, what I consider, low edit counts so I'm not sure how familiar they are with the norms of AFD discussions. I'd just like to relist and hopefully hear how this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability and, specifically, what reliable independent sources provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are MULTIPLE reliable sources about the subject cited on the page, notability is obviously established, keep. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: although not a notable as a politician, there is a substantial coverage from reliable sources that Checks all the boxes of WP:GNG comment there is coverage but the page is mostly about David Challenor, Knight's father, and gives undue weight to Challenor. If the article is kept, can someone fix this problem please and create a separate article for David Challenor (currently a redirect) because he actually deserves one with all of the coverage. I am really concerned about why this article was first created and I can’t assume good faith looking to keep votes above. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very difficult case. She's borderline notable, but mostly for other people's wrong-doing and the way it affected her. I don't think it's realistic to have an article on this subject that adheres to the spirit of WP:BLP while also respecting WP:WEIGHT. That is, when the notability claim isn't extremely sound to begin with, and the source of that notability would demand a largely negative article chiefly related to the misdeeds of other people, we arrive at an exceptional scenario. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY: I just rewrote the article to be less of a train wreck. There's still some work to do but it no longer repeats her fathers crimes in every section and no longer misrepresents the sources as more critical than they are. I'm very sympathetic to arguments presented by @SportingFlyer, @Rhododendrites, @Say ocean again, and @SnowFire - but think that she is clearly notable to the extent we can't simply delete the article. We have sustained coverage over years detailing how she was a rising star for the greens and held prominent positions, engaged in advocacy, and her career was very publicly derailed following her father's conviction. I believe we should focus on making sure everything there is due and the BLP issues are handled sensitively rather than deleting it. I pinged y'all to see if my edits fixing the ostentatious BLP issues persuade you the article is salvagable, no worries if not. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure this is an improvement. By removing that the protest was related to her father's crimes, you've made the Reddit protest make no sense in your version as coming from seemingly out of nowhere. If she's going to have an article at all, it's going to need to include when her father was relevant to her biography in all of the parts it is relevant (which is unfortunately quite a lot of it), which is why I'd rather just delete entirely. Additionally, there are still aspects that are only questionably relevant - like why are we listing exactly all of her psychological conditions? Obviously autism is a bit of a special case as many people consider that a core part of their identity, but I'm not so sure Knight considers it that, and then that leaves why the others anyway (which are implicitly equated with the autism spectrum)? Your version has also added in more commentary from Knight (e.g. including the IMO fairly meaningless "she condemns the tweets" - of course she does, or including a long quote from her on resigning from the Green Party rather than simply saying it was due to transphobia). If we set aside her father's actions... what distinguishes Knight from any other activist? Not much, as best I can tell. This is not something article editing can really fix. This is an odd version of Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, where she's borderline notable but that notability is tied up in a non-notable person's negative coverage. SnowFire (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd concur. I was struggling to understand why this article stood out to me amongst the dozens of political articles I've read at AfD, but notability isn't inherited. If you remove all of the articles in the article that aren't directly or indirectly about her father's crimes, you're left with only a few local political articles, and a couple articles or posts on social media that she wrote herself - in short, the type of local activist that wouldn't normally be eligible for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 12:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you remove all of the articles in the article that aren't directly or indirectly about her father's crimes - The articles that are indirectly about his crimes are directly about her. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The indirect articles are just the local political articles I was referring to. Apart from an interview, she's not really notable outside the incident. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer suggests that If you remove all of the articles in the article that aren't directly or indirectly about her father's crimes, you're left with only a few local political articles, and a couple articles or posts on social media that she wrote herself. Looking at the current references, there are several about her father's crimes and several that are local political articles, but other references are not that. I would pick out the following. 7 is a significant interview with a national newspaper unrelated to her father. 5 is a short interview with the same national newspaper a year earlier, unrelated to her father. 4 is not related to her father and, while a minor publication, isn't a local political article. 9, 10 are less significant publications, but national and not local, about another smaller issue involving Knight (not related to her father). 39 is about her and about her partner's behaviour, not her father's crimes, and is a national newspaper. There is then her departure from Reddit, most notably national newspaper coverage in 40. This was related to her father's crimes, but only indirectly and is broader than that (as it also relates to her partner's behaviour). Bondegezou (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a Society interview, where people who aren't normally famous or notable get an interview in the Guardian. The second might be okay but again is an interview and would be considered primary. The third is a blog. 9 and 10 she is simply quoted as a spokesperson, the article is not about her at all. 39 and 40 has the same problem as I mentioned - even if it wasn't her father it was her partner. There's simply not a lot here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at the first 10 references in the article (and there are plenty more). These are:
  • [2] Substantial piece about her and her father about event 1
  • [3] Substantial piece about her about event 2
  • [4] Substantial piece about her (event 2)
  • [5] Substantial piece about her, unconnected to events 1 or 2
  • [6] Shorter piece about her, unconnected to events 1 or 2
  • [7] Substantial piece about her (event 1)
  • [8] Substantial piece about her, unconnected to events 1 or 2
  • [9] Shorter piece about her (event 1)
  • [10] Shorter piece mentioning her (event 3)
  • [11] Short piece mentioning her (event 3)
There is coverage of multiple different events/stages of her life, with several substantial articles about her. As I said, this clearly passes WP:GNG. If the article needs work, fix it. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maxisediting, may I ask if you have any relation to Knight at all, even if it is being something such as an acquaintance? Considering the past history of the subject of the article (especially the brief tenure at Reddit) and this deletion page is your only edit right after you signed up, at least some suspicions are harboured. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hi, no relation to knight. have made anonymous edits before but stumbled across this page and just found it strange that such a minor figure had such an article, had some concerns about what the real purpose of the article was. worthwhile discussion on both sides though Maxisediting (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just be aware that this discussion has also been linked to by Kiwi Farms and so there may be some interference ran by users from that site. Digestive Biscuit (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While as a queer person myself, I am very sympathetic to the subject as a victim of crime, I have real concerns that I share with others who have written about this. My biggest concerns are BLP and TNT. The main claims to notability are the same as those that contribute to violations of our BLP rules. It’s such a mess that it could be deleted for that reason alone. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-chosen local politician. The rest is mostly voluntary work. Looks like puffery. The sources are not specifically about her. The Banner talk 10:18, 13 July 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aimee_Knight&oldid=1234267577"