Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Snapes

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. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE also applies, but consensus to delete is now clear. Sandstein 11:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Laura Snapes[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nom per BLPREQUEST Kb03 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[]

~~Tentative~~ delete. I don't think she meets WP:NJOURNALIST, so probably deletion would be warranted according to our ordinary process, but I have a question: are BLPREQUESTS done through OTRS? How do we know this one is genuine? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[]

AleatoryPonderings, without revealing too much information, an OTRS ticket was involved. If you want to reach out to another OTRS member to confirm the ticket number is ticket:2020092210009119. Kb03 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Thanks Kb03. I've struck the "tentative" above per your note. (Just to be clear, I didn't suspect you of any chicanery—just wasn't sure about the process here.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep I created the article, and I believe the page should not be deleted. She is a very well known journalist in modern music journalism (i.e. internet) and has been written about and quoted extensively in a wide variety of reliable sources. She is currently second-in-command in editing the music section of The Guardian. She has distinguished herself in her general music writing as well as more recently on the discussion of gender equality and feminism in the music industry and in music journalism. And a quick search shows me she is cited and quoted on upwards of 600 different English Wikipedia articles. It's worth noting that this deletion nomination was immediately preceded by an IP editor removing sourced information and adding unsourced information, quickly followed by a new registered user doing the same. I tried discussing with the user but they did not respond, and then this OTRS-requested deletion happens. I can only assume these two things are connected...... Οἶδα (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Weak keep per Οἶδα, and with respect to AleatoryPonderings. After reading both WP:NJOURNALIST and BLPREQUEST, I do think that she is a notable journalist; I do not think her life would be "badly affected" by being included in an encyclopedia. While neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist, I'd be more in favor of deleting for run-of-the-mill excessive BLP article reasons. But she does seem important because of her journalism in regard to both music and feminism and music and social media (although maybe those sections can be trimmed). If I have missed anything re: BLPREQUEST, please let me know. Caro7200 (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete or Stubify Barely falls short of WP:NJOURNALIST and the career section of the article contains quite a few pieces of unnessecary information. Kb03 (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[]
- ~~Agree to~~ Stubify as it is more logical than delete ("in response to an OTRS complaint"). As someone familiar with the article's subject and the history of indie music journalism, Snapes is regarded as an important figure in the scene and is frequently cited by her peers. Her journalistic work and her unique experiences as a woman journalist have been highly influential to indie music. And recently, her work has been very important in forcing the Me Too conversation into indie music. I also can't ignore the circumstances that precipiated this proposed deletion. I can only assume the requester is the same editor I mentioned above, and they should have discussed further on the article's talk page to confirm the minor corrections they initially changed. The information they felt was unreliable can easily be removed, and the article stubbed. Deleting the article is not a sound decision, and would unreasonably add another biography of a notable woman to the red. Because as I look over the subjects listed at Category:Music journalists, it is looking less like an WP:Other stuff exists argument and more like WP:Other men exist, whose individual notabilities has seemingly not been put under the same micro-microscope. Οἶδα (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete This person is not notable enough that we should have an article over the subject's request for us not to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[]
- As I stated above, the issue began with an IP editor claiming a few references were outdated. Specifically, the school the subject attended and their relationship status which I have since both removed, as well as an opinion they asserted which I could find no mention of on the internet. Unfortunately they didn't elaborate further with any references of their own so I reverted the changes. Deleting the article outright on the basis of a miniscule portion of it being called into question is unnecessary. I've removed them, and further stubbing the article is easily done. Those supporting deletion are decidedly terse and flippant in their comments. And again, you may not be a fan of WP:OTHERSTUFF but Category:Music journalists is chock-full of stubs for journalists of similar and much lower notability. I would be disappointed to say the least if this developed and well-sourced article for a female music journalist of demonstrated notability is deleted following such meager deliberation. Οἶδα (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete or Stubify As the subject of this article, I am begging you to either delete it or reduce it to a stub, per my revisions today that someone keeps reverting. Details about what panels I have been on and people I have interviewed on stage and reviews I've written are completely irrelevant and quotidian and the kind of activity that literally every music journalist participates in - there is nothing distinguishing about them at all. I feel sick and harassed by the obsessive level of detail that has gone into compiling this page, and I just want to wrest back some control and for it to be pared down to the basics - places of employment, Phoenix book, Kozelek and Palmer if they have to be there - and that is it. If you're making a claim for my significance - which I do not support or want - then surely you see that filling this page with a bizarre level of insignificant detail only undermines that. I've been fighting this battle for weeks, Wikipedia will not help me, and I feel completely distressed by it. I just want to be left alone and to stop feeling surveilled by whoever is maintaining this. charliechalks (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete, after considering recent edits. I regret the subject feels harassed, but I am afraid they misunderstand what Wikipedia is and how BLPs are neutrally developed and verified. The subject's stubbing edits on the article are also removing relevant, uncontroversial content. The implication I get is they personally want that information off their wiki, while simultaneously keeping more controversial (but well-sourced) content (which happens to be positive toward the subject). Normally I would vote again to keep the article as a stub, but going forward I personally do not wish to patrol the article which I feel is at risk of vandalism or BLP violations. And I do not believe the subject editing this article to their partiality will end in the future. The have removed slightly critical information and added minor original research before as well. For the sake and honor of BLP and its standards, I believe it is best to delete the page. Until the subject develops a more signifcant notability and meets a wider poriton of the criteria at WP:NJOURNALIST, the abscence of this article is preferable.......I wrote the preceding text prior to the subject's comment being added here, and am further alarmed by their expressions and the control which they seek to have over the article. Deletion unfortunately somewhat surrenders to that behavior, but is still preferable to preservation of a potentially biased article of a living person. Οἶδα (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]

As evidenced by my request for deletion, I do not want this page to exist at all, never mind for it to be flattering. I was making the case that if it was deemed that it had to exist, the Kozelek/Palmer/Phoenix elements are the parts that actually carry any minuscule amount of wider relevance as they were noteworthy events in the respective chronologies of those artists. I do not consider any of the prior information on it unflattering, simply completely irrelevant or posing a risk to my personal safety. I am disturbed by this page's existence and your obnoxious attempt to maintain ownership over it when I am neither a celebrity nor a significant figure. charliechalks (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Well Kozelek/Palmer/Phoenix are not the subject of the article. And this began when you removed standard BLP information that has been published in reliable sources, and also made unreferenced claims in removing/adding other information. And I never once made any claims of ownership. That would be asinine: this is Wikipedia and no one here owns any page. That's kind of the point. Οἶδα (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]

~~Delete or~~ drastically trim. First of all, this is a completely normal journalist who straddles the fence of notability, if even that, to begin with. Secondly -- okay, if it helps, let's imagine the opposite scenario, where a putative User:LauraSnapesPublicist had regged 24 hours ago and added all of this dreck to the article, and showed up in the AfD to vote "keep" -- would any of us have a problem committing it to the flames? No? Then there's no point in contrarianism qua contrarianism. I don't think there is any cogent argument for the article being as long as this, and there definitely doesn't arise a cogent argument from the mere fact of her hating it. It's not as though she is a child predator or a corrupt politician or something trying to get the dirt taken off her article. She is, by any sane reckoning, a normal everyday human being (well, okay, a journalist -- but that's close enough). Being a music journalist does not mean that there's a public interest in everyone knowing whether your belly button goes in or out. jp×g 10:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment: I've copyedited the article, and trimmed its length substantially while making sure that what remained was well-referenced. A few non-notable things were removed entirely. It should probably be noted that above comments pertain to an older version of the article which included a lot more dreck. jp×g 11:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Fair enough. However, I voted "keep" before adding to the article. And admittedly I probably should have tagged the article as under construction or deleted a bunch of information and worked in my sandbox. I was in the process of drastically restructuring and removing information. The Palmer section needed to be shortened from the start but I found that fiasco too convuluted to shorten while maintaining neutrality. I wanted to trim and consolidate large parts of the article, as I stated prior to above. However, I don't agree with the "belly button goes in or out" comparison. I only ever added public information that was published by reliable newspapers, magazines, institutions etc. Some superfluous information I inclulded to combine into the Kozelek section about sexism and misogyny experienced by women in music, which Snapes has written and spoken about extensively. The article would incomplete without a developed section about that. But I'm not exactly interested in doing so anymore because I don't want to continue editing an article of a subject who feels harassed even though I may disagree with them and believe they continue to show that they misunderstand Wikipedia. And thank you jpxg for stubbing the article. Οἶδα (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]

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.