337:
because she's already well-known for appearing in the mainstream press. "Private" information which isn't backed up by reliable sources can get deleted from the article straight away. But if the "private information" you're talking about is information which she's provided to an interviewer and had published in a major newspaper with her parents' permission -- then it's not really "private" any more, is it? It's in the public record. What kind of "personal information" are you referring to, specifically?
558:, it can be removed—there's no rule saying that there can't be articles about minors period. And, as said above, Gevinson is already notable and has already been covered in mainstream media, so this article is not spreading anything that hasn't already been published in mainstream media. For example, name of the city she lives in (with a population over 50,000) is not dangerous identifying information like her address would be. Other than that (which I have already removed), the article contains
239:
From what I can gather reading the article, the child has been the subject of interviews and appeared on the front cover of a magazine, all with her parents' permission. The presumption of privacy is for people not explicitly seeking publicity. How do you know she wants the article removed? (not that
224:
I believe it breaches
Knowledge (XXG)'s policies on biographies of living persons, namely the presumption in favor of privacy, and the privacy of personal information. Personal and irrelevant information about this child continues to be added to this page, no matter how often it is removed. There is
599:
Also, you have said above that "personal information keeps being added to this page". Well, there are ways to deal with that other than deletion. First of all, there are many people watching the page to undo edits that add undue personal information. And if it ever becomes too much of a problem, it
273:
If a person has actively sought publicity in the form of interviews and front-page shoots, then of course there's no longer a presumption that the person wishes to remain low-key and unknown. The "presumption of privacy" is for the likes of crime victims and people involved in news coverage through
254:
The presumption of privacy is only for people who have not received publicity? Where does it say that? People keep entering personally identifiable and irrelevant information to this page, which she does want and thinks is "dumb". Because of the age of the subject, we should err on the side of
461:
Knowledge (XXG)'s notion of notability is a joke. She's a kid who writes a blog about things she digs. Because our notoriously shallow and fickle mass culture filled some columns with stuff about her, her life is open to public scrutiny? Give me a break. There are thousands of real writers with
288:
So she has to wait until she's a victim of crime before wikipedia will respect a child's right to privacy and remove her private information? This is so frustrating. We keep removing personal information about her, and people keep adding it back. Editing the content via normal channels is not
336:
No, let me try to explain. This girl is actively seeking to become well known. She's doing interviews, she's had her photo on the front cover of a magazine, she's designed a t-shirt sold on the basis of her name. Thus we have on an article on her, and it doesn't get deleted on "privacy" grounds
274:
no fault of their own. As this person is under 18, then yes we do have a greater responsibility to keep the information on the page pertinent and backed up by reliable sources. But that is an article content issue, not grounds for deletion.
462:
prize winning books that don't have pages on
Knowledge (XXG). Philip Dray is a pulitzer finalist who won the Robert Kennedy Book Award for his excellent history of lynching in America. Where's his wikipedia page?
225:
no way to remove this information without continually drawing attention to it. Privacy of a child should take precedence over mainstream media's definition of notability. She wishes to have the article removed.
160:
424:. It's relatively well-sourced, doesn't contain any defamatory information, and whatever basic personal facts it contains, they have already been published by several major news sources. —
115:
530:
154:
120:
210:
you think the article falls under? If you have an issue with particular sentences in the article, they can be dealt with via regular editing rather than deletion.
206:
I notice that every single sentence of the article is sourced to information published in mainstream news sources. Would you mind explaining which of the
256:
441:. Subject is clearly notable, and if there are issues with the content of the article (I see none at the moment) they can be addressed via editing.
48:
as there are no stated valid reasons for deletion; extremely well-sourced. Semi-protection will be added to the page to solve the vandalism issue.
481:
585:
It is exactly as dangerous. Look, my intention was not to further expose personal information about this kid. Please remove this thread.
17:
88:
83:
379:); we're just regular users, and we're not in any position to verify your credentials to make claims on the behalf of the subject.
92:
305:
75:
601:
175:
142:
617:
575:
511:
641:
36:
640:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
136:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
562:
incriminating personal information, it just talks about her blogging activities and appearances in the media.
417:
293:
622:
594:
580:
554:
Nomination not based on a valid reason for deletion. If there is information in the article that violates
545:
516:
493:
471:
456:
433:
406:
388:
370:
361:
The subject of this article is requesting deletion. If you have any further questions, please email me.
346:
309:
283:
268:
249:
234:
219:
200:
132:
57:
451:
259:: "under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy."
498:@WikiMrsP: That's a problem with our culture and what it pays attention to, not with Knowledge (XXG).
182:
168:
485:
380:
338:
275:
241:
211:
590:
467:
366:
301:
264:
230:
196:
79:
541:
489:
429:
402:
393:
You also have an option of making a request for permanent deletion of personal information at
384:
342:
279:
245:
215:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
442:
555:
421:
394:
289:
helping to protect the safety and privacy of this young girl. Please delete this article.
207:
148:
586:
463:
362:
297:
260:
226:
192:
71:
63:
416:. I also don't think that a valid reason for deletion was given. Knowledge (XXG) is
537:
425:
398:
49:
109:
480:
you can create it yourself. He'd certainly pass notability, judging from all the
375:
All I can suggest is that you contact the
Wikimedia Foundation directly (details
606:
564:
500:
477:
376:
257:
Knowledge (XXG):Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy
634:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
105:
101:
97:
420:
and the article seems to pass all key requirements of
167:
191:Information in article violates privacy of a minor
181:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
644:). No further edits should be made to this page.
604:the page so unregistered users cannot edit it.
8:
531:list of Fashion-related deletion discussions
255:caution and delete this article. From the
240:this would be a valid reason for deletion)
525:
529:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
623:00:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
605:
595:00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
581:23:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
563:
546:23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
517:04:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
499:
494:03:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
472:02:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
457:22:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
434:22:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
407:00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
389:23:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
371:23:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
347:23:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
310:23:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
284:23:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
269:23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
250:22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
235:22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
220:22:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
201:21:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
58:20:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
661:
637:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
600:is always possible to
395:Requests for oversight
208:reasons for deletion
44:The result was
621:
579:
548:
534:
515:
313:
296:comment added by
652:
639:
614:
610:
572:
568:
535:
508:
504:
484:he's generated.
476:If you click on
454:
449:
312:
290:
186:
185:
171:
123:
113:
95:
34:
660:
659:
655:
654:
653:
651:
650:
649:
648:
642:deletion review
635:
620:
608:
578:
566:
514:
502:
452:
443:
291:
128:
119:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
658:
656:
647:
646:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
616:
574:
549:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
510:
496:
436:
411:
410:
409:
391:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
189:
188:
125:
121:AfD statistics
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
657:
645:
643:
638:
632:
631:
624:
619:
613:
612:
603:
598:
597:
596:
592:
588:
584:
583:
582:
577:
571:
570:
561:
557:
553:
550:
547:
543:
539:
532:
528:
524:
518:
513:
507:
506:
497:
495:
491:
487:
483:
482:news coverage
479:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
460:
459:
458:
455:
450:
448:
447:
440:
437:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
373:
372:
368:
364:
360:
359:
348:
344:
340:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
287:
286:
285:
281:
277:
272:
271:
270:
266:
262:
258:
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
223:
222:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
122:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:Tavi Gevinson
69:
68:
65:
64:Tavi Gevinson
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
636:
633:
559:
551:
526:
445:
444:
438:
418:not censored
413:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
45:
43:
31:
28:
552:Speedy keep
478:Philip Dray
292:—Preceding
155:free images
46:Speedy keep
538:• Gene93k
618:contribs
587:WikiMrsP
576:contribs
512:contribs
464:WikiMrsP
446:É Ç€ÉłĚ©Ď‚ÎµÎťÉˇ
363:WikiMrsP
306:contribs
298:WikiMrsP
294:unsigned
261:WikiMrsP
227:WikiMrsP
193:WikiMrsP
116:View log
602:protect
486:Holly25
426:Rankiri
414:Comment
399:Rankiri
381:Holly25
339:Holly25
276:Holly25
242:Holly25
212:Holly25
161:WPÂ refs
149:scholar
89:protect
84:history
50:Bearian
556:WP:BLP
422:WP:BLP
133:Google
93:delete
397:. —
176:JSTOR
137:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
611:anaɢ
591:talk
569:anaɢ
542:talk
527:Note
505:anaɢ
490:talk
468:talk
453:bomb
439:Keep
430:talk
403:talk
385:talk
377:here
367:talk
343:talk
302:talk
280:talk
265:talk
246:talk
231:talk
216:talk
197:talk
169:FENS
143:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
536:--
183:TWL
118:•
114:– (
593:)
560:no
544:)
533:.
492:)
470:)
432:)
405:)
387:)
369:)
345:)
308:)
304:•
282:)
267:)
248:)
233:)
218:)
199:)
163:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
615:/
609:ʨ
607:r
589:(
573:/
567:ʨ
565:r
540:(
509:/
503:ʨ
501:r
488:(
466:(
428:(
401:(
383:(
365:(
341:(
300:(
278:(
263:(
244:(
229:(
214:(
195:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.