Tiffany Dover: I'm not seeing BLP, or simple GNG.  Her fainting event was non-notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: COVID-19 and Tennessee .  Shellwood ( talk ) 20:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this story was giant news and covered in the big media.  Here on MSNBC Chris Haye's show.  [3] .  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 ] Delete this is BLP1E.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 00:39, 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: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/misinformation/tiffany-dover-conspiracy-theorists-silence-rcna69401 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 ] Delete - Fails BLP1E.  BilCat ( talk ) 01:46, 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

Discussion outcome: delete