Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Pettibone

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. Sandstein 11:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why tho? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5247:2500:61D1:CA32:2E13:6C3D (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Pettibone[edit]

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

The main reason for the nomination is that the subject of this BLP does not seem to have any reliable sources profiling her or dealing with her in a thorough way. Almost all sources in the article talk about her in passing (in a sentence or two) and mostly in a negative fashion. This means that the article is now, and will remain in the future, primarily an WP:attack page.

This phenomenon has played out over the history of this article. There have been numerous sockpuppets (since blocked) who have tried to call her neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic and so on, based on dubious sourcing; and others sock (who are also blocked) who have tried to "balance" dubious sources with other dubious sources like Youtube videos and the like.

The bottom line is that reliable sources dealing with the subject are scarce, so no good BLP is possible. This article should either be stubbed, or deleted. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 10:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 10:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 10:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Upon reviewing the article I noticed that even the section about her life and work as an author is hardly verifiable - the most complete sources are a blog and a primary one. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The key question is whether that information may be presumed accurate. Of course, neither source counts towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've reviewed the history of the article a bit and, as the nominator states, there have been efforts by both supporters and detractors to add information to the article but without sufficient reliable sources to verify article content. At this stage, the subject of this article does not appear to meet notability criteria. In the current political climate, that may change in the near future in which case the article can be recreated or restored (perhaps this is a case of Wikipedia:Too soon). Deli nk (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS - GretLomborg (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the Washington Post article does not support Pettibone being notable. Starting an odd hastag, or in this case probably more reinvigorating it, is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pizzagate conspiracy theory I fail to understand how The New York Observer, or The Washington Post can be considered entirely unreliable/unnotable, but beyond that, I also don't understand why this being a possible "attack page" means we should delete it. The aforementioned sources don't appear to deal with the subject in a "passing" manner. Regardless, most of the notability of this article comes from the fact that Brittany Pettibone promoted Pizzagate, so if anything, we should merge to that article. --Aleccat 02:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Doesn't look to be quite enough to pass WP:GNG/WP:BIO. That said, I don't buy the WP:ATTACK/WP:BLP rationales for deletion. There's a similar justification associated with another recent AfD for Jacob Barnett. Whereas he was a child, making claims inappropriately reported upon by the media, with exposure in large part through his parents, she is an adult with coverage about her words and activities made in public, as a public person. If there's significant coverage of her in reliable sources, then as long as we present it neutrally, without disproportionately emphasizing the negative, it's not a problem for BLP. But, again, I don't see quite enough that GNG is satisfied here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability based on the sources provided. Marquis de Faux (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Newsweek gives her a heavy mention, Mother Jones states she was a speaker at an alt-right event — one needn't love the conspiracy theorist or their lunatic ideas to appreciate the fact that they are a public figure worthy of encyclopedic biography. It is pretty clear just from sources showing in the footnotes that this public figure merits a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence about this. I don't see any single source supporting this, by itself. Her indirect encouragement of the Comet Ping-Pong shooting might have elevated coverage of this above NOTNEWS, maybe. The Observer source about her canceled GoFundMe campaign, and the Denver Post and Hamilton Spectator articles all point to something, but it's a bunch of overlapping edge-cases.

The Newsweek mention describes her as one of countless online “investigators” and says little about her of substance. Being quoted by a source as a participant in a niche issue is very thin for conferring notability. We should guard against saying she inherited her notability from her involvement in spreading a notable conspiracy theory. The MJ source says Speakers include Brittany Pettibone, an alt-right writer who pushes the conspiracy theory of “white genocide.” That's it, and it does nothing for GNG, but it's suggest some staying power now that Pizzagate has died-down. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2017 (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.