Draft talk:Lily Orchard

Do we really need this?

Best case scenario, this just becomes an article about some internet drama. I'm a bit more lenient towards inclusions of YouTubers than most others, but I really do not see how Lily Orchard fits the mission beyond just being a shitty person. Plutocow (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I figured there was enough, especially given I've personally wrote articles on figures with less controversy around them.--Ephrom (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The article on James Somerton primarily documents his plagiarism. If this is missional to RW, then it seems like Orchard might be as well, on the same basis of similar allegations. She's also got a history of ignorant and pathologising remarks about autism. Noodles (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Now I feel kind of silly for jumping the gun and deleting the article, yeah I was going to focus on plagiarism (although a lot of the evidence for that is much harder to find than I previously realized) along with her incorrect statements about mental illness and other conditions.--Ephrom (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't need an article on every plagiarist. Plutocow (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

What about alleged serial plagiarists with a record of promoting ableist crankery? People can be relevant to RW's mission in more than one way. Noodles (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I would support it if we recreated this draft. Carthage (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Voting on restoring the draft. (Restore won.)

Yes

1. I was convinced by Noodles providing context that Lily Orchard is a serial plagiarist who has also engaged in ableist crankery, and obviously discussion of Orchard intersects with transphobia, given how a significant section of the discourse surrounding her is motivated by transphobic sentiment. Carthage (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Plagiarism, crankery, ableism, transphobia… dear God, this person's a toxic cocktail of shit, and we need to warn people that her opinions are invalid. --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Seems like there's enough missional "angles" here to warrant an article. Noodles (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
4. I doubt an article on this topic will ever be good enough for mainspace, but if Carthage wants to try, she has a right to do so and there’s at least a chance she can pull it off. It also makes more sense to have this fight at the “draft to mainspace” stage rather than the “restore a deleted draft” stage, imo. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
5. Carthage did mention she wanted to start a new article, so. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
6. What is the harm in having another draft? It is technically missional, and Lily is not a small YouTuber. There is another issue as well, where we can't seem to decide who gets to be relevant and who doesn't, as far as I'm concerned, any article like this that is both missional and meets some kind of objective threshold is fine, or none is, either way that seems like a more fair system that invites less disputes. But yeah, it is just draft, why heff to be mad? BumblingBuffoon (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
7. Little harm. Justarandomliberal (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Nay

1. Just leave it deleted. Plutocow (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Come back here in a couple of years and see if anyone gives a shit. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
3. I find the ableist argument very weird. We don't need an article just to say "look at this person, they are on the Internet and they are ableist". GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

   Is ableism not missional in the same way racism and transphobia is? Carthage (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

   Really looks like you're saying that ableism isn't a type of crankery/bigotry worth documenting. Noodles (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

   It certainly is, Carthage. But ableism as a topic and people who practice ableism are two separate things. The former is a topic which can be analysed and refuted. The latter will always consist of "X person exists on the internet and is an ableist" ad nauseam, to the point where it would be easier to have a page with heading ABLEISTS and just lump people under it in a bullet point list - which is not what we do around here. Now, this kind of thing is certainly not without value; as Luigifan rightly pointed out people should be held accountable for what they say and do. That way if people happen to Google them they can see at a glance how bad their track record is.
   

   But in this case? I just don't see it. Looking quickly at the channel I see that the vast majority of videos are video game/animation related, mostly "Here's a game I really liked/Here's an anime that kinda sucks and here is why." Why should we care if she plagiarised some of these video essays? I certainly don't. This type of plagiarism is not related to refuting the anti-science/fundie/conspiracy movement. As for the ableism, frankly it would be a Herculean task to document every single person on the internet who is an ableist. The internet is a stinking cesspit of degeneracy, Cart. We would make better headway documenting people who AREN'T ableist.
   

   Ever hear of the Rageaholic? A similar channel, except three times as big and a HELLA lot more problematic. We used to have an article on him that was deleted (RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/The Rageholic). At the time I believed that it would be useful to keep around, but as time went on and I saw more and more similar articles of random internet creators being made here I started to understand. Half the time it's just "Here's a thingy from Twitter/Here's a bad video" over and over and over, neither funny or informative or good at debunking the crap these people spew. I mean no offence to you or the other editors who think this is worth having, nor am I seeking to criticise @Ephrom (who is a top notch editor, without a shadow of a doubt). But I honestly don't think we need an article of every marginally missional person on the internet. There would be too many, they'd be repetitive and they would attract the fanbases of the various content creators like flies to blood. Heaps of BoNs on every damn talkpage moaning about how we are a pack of DICKHEADS for saying mean things about their favourite YouTuber/Streamer, followed by the creators themselves screaming about being libelled. It ain't worth it. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 00:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

   

   Of course ableism is missional. But is one single ableist YouTuber missional? Do we need an entire article just to say that this person is wrong? As Cosmik once said, ideas, not individuals, should be our focus. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

   I'm just going to be blunt, if I knew about how common the issue of people making articles on random YouTubers were once upon a time, I probably would have been much more cautious. Truth be told, I primarily made this article because I know many people (including in communities I associate with like the SCC) who have a lot of issues with Lily, and I figured it would at least be worthwhile to document some of the more extreme examples for the time being. If you guys think this is outside what the mission here is, I totally understand.(Also, it's a tad funny you mention Razorfist, given I covered him on my YouTube channel and had to deal with some of his fans.)--Ephrom (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

   "As for the ableism, frankly it would be a Herculean task to document every single person on the internet who is an ableist. The internet is a stinking cesspit of degeneracy, Cart. We would make better headway documenting people who AREN'T ableist."

   So you are arguing that ableism isn't worth documenting (you agreed with the quoted text). This is extremely gross. Ableism is inherently anti-science. Lily has 141K subscribers on YouTube. This meets RW's standard of notability for YouTubers. I will be restoring this draft on the basis of that, since it's effectively 4/4 and no substantive, policy-based arguments against inclusion have been put forward. Noodles (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

   @Noodles Hm?

   "So you are arguing that ableism isn't worth documenting." I am unsure of what I could respond to that with besides copy and pasting the first part of my big wall of text or saying, through gritted teeth, "as per my previous email" in a very passive aggressive tone, Noodles. This is not an article on ableism. We have an article on ableism. That article is a pretty good one, and one which I believe is missional. If you are asking me if we should have a listicle on the millions (billions?) of people who act like jackasses on the internet then no, I don't think that's a particularly worthwhile enterprise.

   "This is extremely gross." I feel like you expressing distaste at my perceived lack of empathy does not, in and of itself, amount to an argument as to why we should have this article, Noodles. You could call me much worse than "gross," my friend, and I would not protest. Indeed the editors who have been here for a lot longer than you can probably describe in detail just how much of a wanker I am. I am a grade A bastard, have no doubt about that. But the fact that I happen to be an asshole (true) is both a non-sequitur and an ad hominem.

   "Ableism is inherently anti-science." I never claimed otherwise.

   "Lily has 141K subscribers on YouTube." That she does.

   "This meets RW's standard of notability for YouTubers." That it does Noodles, but so do a lot of channels I watch, like the official RIZIN FF channel, or Tasting History with Max Miller. I don't think we should have articles on either of those things. The 100k cut off point is there to ensure that this place isn't used for self-promotion/platforming of nobodies. It's not there to suggest that everyone who has passed the threshold is de-facto worthy of being featured here.

   "I will be restoring this draft on the basis of that, since it's effectively 4/4 and no substantive, policy-based arguments against inclusion have been put forward." One wonders what the point of asking everyone's opinions was, if after less than two days you intended to unilaterally restore the draft anyway. Only the people who watch this Wiki like hawks know that this vote is even taking place. And I would have thought that in the case of a tie the status quo would remain. But I am not the supreme leader of this Wiki, Noodles. If my fellow editors derive joy from the things they do on this website than I am glad as well. If this action makes you happy than I am at peace.

   Have a good one. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 16:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

   (EC) In fact, it's 3/4 with the majority supporting deletion, Noodles (and I'm not counting the author, that seems to support deleting it as well). I'm not going to delete the article again, but I believe that we should have waited longer to see what should have been done. Also, I think you're being way to aggressive and being to hasty at assuming bad faith from other editors, which is not cool. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

   (EC - reply to Rairyu75) You made an argument about YouTube notability without knowing RW's existing policy on YouTube notability. You were wrong. Take the L and move on. In any case, this draft wasn't deleted as a result of a community vote. It was pre-emptively deleted by its creator as an individual (seemingly kneejerk) decision. I don't blame Ephrom for reacting in that way, but if you're going to complain about something being out of process, start there. Noodles (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

4. No offence gang. An argument could be made as to why this is missional, and I think no less of the editors who disagree with me. But I just don't see it. It's a nay from me. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 00:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
5. Ehhh.....Being ableist and having a big channel =/= missional in my eyes. RW should not be reduced to look youtuber X is ableist here they said Y dramamongering. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

   What makes ableism less worth documenting than other forms of bigotry? The fact that you feel it's qualitatively worth less than documenting racists and transphobes is not a substantive argument. Carthage (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

   It's not less worth documenting, I'd say the same thing about run of the mill transphobes/racists with big channels. Now if the youtuber had an impact say response videos made by others to them, or made some lesser known tropes/arguments rather than repeating common talking points/arguments, etc. then I'd say its worth documenting. Otherwise its just look youtuber X is ableist/racist/sexist/transphobic here they said Y dramamongering. 11:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

   Essence of Thought has done several videos on them. Carthage (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Goat

1. There is no policy based reason to delete this draft. Arguments that we don't "need an article on every Youtuber under the sun" is unconvincing when not every Youtuber under the sun is missional. Lily Orchard definitely is missional. This is not comparable to "Tasting History" or "Fall of Civilizations". Carthage (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

   If most people want a draft/article/etc. deleted, it gets deleted, end of story. This is a mobocracy, not a bureaucracy. Plutocow (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

   I'm not the one who restored this draft lol, so I don't know why you're telling me that. Isn't this conclusion kind of premature too? There is still an ongoing discussion. Carthage (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I see this draft has been unilaterally and prematurely deleted. No policy-based arguments have been put forward to justify this action. In fact the main argument raised (notability) is demonstrably counter to existing policy. If this draft was still half-baked in a couple of months, its value and missionality could have been reassessed. Drafts will never develop into proper articles if they're never given a chance. People won't want to commit to researching and writing articles if their hard work is just going to end up arbitrarily chucked in the bin. There will no contributions from me going forward for this reason. Noodles (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft was unilaterally deleted without consensus to end the vote, yeah. "This wiki is a mobocracy, not a bureaucracy." Carthage (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Like, FFS, I didn't just state that Sheldon is bad autistic representation, I actually went the distance and found a study that reached that conclusion. Now all of Ephrom's and my work has vanished in a poof because a couple of people decided they don't like it. Noodles (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Any criticism that the arguments used to support deletion are weak can be handwaved away with "this is a mobocracy, we don't have to explain shit." Carthage (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not like there isn't more to cover. I was going to stick with what I know, i.e. Lily's ableism and her beef with Natalie. I expect Ephrom intended to document the plagiarism accusations. But her TV Tropes page states she made anti-feminist videos and defended South Park's edgelord humor early in her career. I didn't want to bring this up (much less add it to the draft) before trying to independently verify it. I love how the official line is "RW is a mobocracy, not a democracy," but suddenly simple majority in a vote trumps engaging in a discussion to determine a consensus from the quality of the arguments presented. We've presented multiple points in favor of this article's relevance to RW. This is the time to present a policy-based case for why you feel this article isn't missional. If no such arguments are forthcoming, it can be assumed there are none to be made. Noodles (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Carthage (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

UTC)

Truncated edit summary was: "Discussion ongoing. Do not delete until clear policy-based reasons for deletion/retention have been presented and considered. In a mobocracy the first-past-the-post majority doesn't always win. Consensus can be reached based on arguments and evidence." Noodles (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That's obviously not gonna happen, though. You don't need to justify your weak arguments and respond to criticism when you've got the social capital. "This is a mobocracy, not a bureaucracy." The discussion hasn't even ended and Pluto is unilaterally imposing their judgement lol. Carthage (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Plutocow, it's time to explain your actions. Instead of engaging in this discussion and explaining why you feel this isn't missional, you are edit warring and bullying. This is starting to smell really fucking fishy. Noodles (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You restored it without consensus and are trying to restore it again when there is consensus against restoring. I'm just enforcing the will of the mob here. There are deletions that I disagreed with but I don't throw a hissy fit over it. As mod, I implore you to take a step back and stop restoring it unless you can create a consensus in favor of doing so. Plutocow (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, this is not Wikipedia, policy reasons like "notability" are generally not used in deletion discussions and "consensus" is a complete nonfactor here. See RW:CS#Mobocracy. Plutocow (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Noodles, please, stop assuming bad faith just because your demands are not being met. You still haven't answered. We already have an article on ableism. Why should we focus in some random on the Internet, not on the (obviously missional) idea of ableism? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(EC - for Pluto) First: There is no clear consensus here, Pluto. At least three active editors (me, Carthage, Luigifan) feel this article is missional. Four if you count the original creator, Ephrom, who I'll assume sees some value in their work until they pitch in saying otherwise. Second, perhaps most important: I did not need consensus to restore this draft when there was never a consensus to delete it in the first place. The was draft was originally deleted in a unilateral decision by its creator Ephrom. Why are you scolding me for doing something "without consensus" in the same breath as telling me that "'consensus' [scarequotes original] is a complete nonfactor here?" And clearly RW has a notability policy where YouTubers are concerned because I've linked to said notability policy multiple times. Noodles (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is just majority rules here, not like how it works in Wikipedia. Just because a YouTuber meets the "notability" threshold doesn't mean they need an article, otherwise we'd have to write articles on people like Markiplier who aren't missional to the best of my knowledge. Plutocow (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(reply to GeeJayK) Why are you hyperfocused on the ableism? That isn't Orchard's only point of relevance. Numerous other points have been raised. Google "Lily Orchard." The top recommended videos are titled "Lily Orchard is INSANE," "Lily Orchard was Wrong, and Here's Why," and "The Pathetic Existence of Lily Orchard." Now, I don't recall having watched any of these recently, and they could be criticizing Lily from an unfounded position (e.g. transphobia, hostility to fandom culture, etc.). But "some random on the Internet" doesn't generate multiple response videos with titles like that. Noodles (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Internet drama is not a good reason for inclusion either. Do we need an article on James Charles? Plutocow (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"Internet drama" has real consequences, as people internalize the misinformation spread as a result of that drama. I'm sure there are a lot of articles about "internet drama" that we can get rid of, but that would be dismissive of the actual harm that is caused by that drama. This is just a dismissal, not a convincing argument in your favor. Orchard is also not a rando, she has well over a hundred thousand subscribers and has caused enough of a controversy to merit covering. The goalposts always seem to move whenever a substantive criticism is raised. Carthage (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(reply to Pluto) If "Internet drama" is never missional, why is there an article on ContraPoints? James Somerton? Hbomberguy? Iilluminaughtii? The Fandom Menace? Gamergate? Evidently some RW contributors believe we shouldn't document online discourse. However, it's clear other contributors feel we should document at least some "Internet drama", otherwise there wouldn't be multiple well-developed articles on the subject. Why are you treating your own personal viewpoint on covering "Internet drama" as if it's policy? Your personal assessment of what's missional is as valid as mine in this regard. There are no objective guideposts here except the YouTube notability rule. And, by that standard, LO passes. Noodles (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Our "objective guideposts(? Do you mean "guidelines"?) are that votes are what matter and this lost. The rest is moot so I won't respond any further. If you have any other questions, go to RW talk:Community Standards. Plutocow (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is 7-5. Can we close it now? Carthage (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

How do we close the vote? It's been weeks. Carthage (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)