RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Maya Forstater

Maya Forstater | Result: Deleted

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) A nobody who became a free speech martyr amongst a largely online reactionary community after a British court ruled that that something they’d said constituted hate speech; We’ve seen how this goes, if this article isn’t deleted now it’ll be deleted shortly after she leaves the news cycle which won’t take long. Article is also poorly written, far too angry. pointed out that she successfully appealed the court ruling recently. Would only take a sentence to fix but it’s worth mentioning as the article currently doesn’t. Christopher (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Total nobody. The article focuses heavily on her Twitter account, which has very little engagement. Not worth keeping. 19:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 20:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Not particularly interesting to the site. 主要行事月 (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) This anti="TERF" orthodoxy is seriously lacking in nuance. It seems to seldom be the most interesting or significant fact about the people we hang the label on, and we end up making a directory of people for which this is the only point of our article.  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 09:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) This thing started out as a redirect with significantly more information on another page. Turn it back into that. Techpriest (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Delete and redirect to TERF. Person has no notability outside of TERF discourse. Celeste (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Considering she is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, I wouldn't say she is a nobody. She is also in this news source from 12/18/2019, showing she has been in the news for 18 months. I think she is notable enough to say. Would say delete if not expanded within a year though.Gale5050 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It won’t be expanded within a year, I can guarantee that. Christopher (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's on the extreme lower edge for what I say could be kept as it is. Gale5050 (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced by the implied argument "If someone is notable enough for Wikipedia, they are notable enough for us.". Wikipedia has articles on many people who we wouldn't - and vice-versa.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Her case is notable, she isn't. Techpriest (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, then the article could be transformed to one on her case. Also, Wikipedia gets rid of non notable storms. For example on the tropical cyclones WikiProject we got rid of storms like Humberto of 1995, Tropical Depression One of 2009, and they also merged other articles such as Rene of 2020 which I actually went out against. Articles are deleted all the time for not being notable, she is. -Gale5050 (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The TERF article already has a large section on the case. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  12:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * This article started as a redirect to Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism. The Forstater case seems to be more important than Forstater herself since it appears to be based around a lot of core rethoric about TERFism in the UK (which is a real problem). I propose just turning this into a redirect and I'll probably end up doing that if whomever is enacting this doesn't do it. Techpriest (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)