Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Chen

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Significa liberdade (talk | contribs) at 23:56, 11 September 2024 (→Lauren Chen: added mention that I was the one who included the list of academic articles named at the beginning of the discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lauren Chen

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

Lauren Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP was created following the announcement that Chen has been indicted by the DOJ for disseminating pro-Russian propaganda. All the sources used in the article discuss the indictment, and the article's primary focus is the indictment. A draft currently exists, which directs back to this page. I have searched for coverage prior to September 1 but have yet to find anything to establish notability (which is honestly surprising to me). I found a few academic journal articles that mention Chen, but there is no SIGCOV. Otherwise, internet sources appear to be primary. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense 2600:1700:1A32:EE30:A41D:C079:4CBE:5596 (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are multiple secondary sources that discussed her influence in right wing media spheres before recent events such as Rebecca Lewis' report "Alternative Influence" and especially the book "The women of the far right" by Eviane Leidig in addition to the publications that were already mentioned. The criteria in WP:BLP1E aren't met. 3iz5 (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I unfortunately believe we should keep this up as a reference for people needing to understand who she is and what she stands for. I believe it is necessary to document the bad as well as the good. I was watching news coverage and that is how I found out about the wiki page. If she is indicted as a part of this current legal process, there will be more that should be added to it in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeMeek (talk • contribs) 04:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep. Subject is alleged by US Federal authorities to have participated in significant organized transborder criminal activity, which is even relevant to the largest ICC war crime investigations so far - if the US DoJ narrative is basically accurate (and so far everything checkable checks out consistently) she would fulfil WP:PERP more easily if anything than Michael McLaney or Gus Greenbaum. Notably:
    1. Indictment directly pertaining to subject (as partially knowing accessory to the main accused) being speedily and thoroughly acted upon by US and Canadian law enforcement and Youtube indicates these all consider the allegations well warranted
    2. Aforementioned law enforcement and social media actions directly affected subject.
    3. Subject highly likely to be found even more deeply involved in organized criminal activity involving at least Canada, the USA, Hungary and Russia, as soon as Canadian law enforcements publicly take steps to act against her.
    4. Such scrutiny will predictably lead to the publishing of such an abundance of WP:RS to outweigh the detriment of them being mostly primary and/or newsmedia RS.
    5. A glance over the "forfeiture" parts of the indictment quickly demonstrates that this seizure of assets associated with Chen/Donovan is certain to have major ramifications for wikinotable BLP articles such as Dave Rubin, Tim Pool, Lauren Southern et al., who suddenly find themselves with the bulk (perhaps up to 90%) of their operational cash flow cut with no prior warning
I think the preeding points do strongly advocate considering the delete request misguided, if not frivolous.
Furthermore, until extremely recently the Wikipedia page on subject did not even exist, while RationalWiki had a page on her since 15 November 2018‎, which as of now has 73 sources, not a few of which fulfil WP:RS. The sheer volume of information in the RW article alone a) demonstrates that subject is considered of elevated and long-standing relevance for at least part of the "fact-based community", and b) could expand the Wikipedia article considerably with non-recent information in particular (Tenet Media indictment being only a small addendum to the RW article).
Consequently, it is to be expected that subject's notability will increase significantly as pertinent criminal investigations continue and ramify, and all things considered I strongly advocate that, for the time being, a) a current-event warning and other appropriate warnings (BLP?) and possibly editing restrictions (certified good-faith editors only?) ought to be added, and b) the RationalWiki article be mined for information and sources suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and the present article expanded, and copyedited for quality, accordingly.
tl;dr: "If Frank Wirtanen existed, would he have been notable enough for Wikipedia?"
100% Keep so far and the extended circumstances of this RfD also suggest it is not a bad idea to check the nominator's log for bad-faith editing activity. 5 ct and Doppleganger says we are dealing with a network here whose mission includes targeted falsification of trusted public sources. Calling such people and their helpers "sworn enemies of Wikipedia and all it stands for" is not that much too dramatically un-encyclopedic, and, sadly, "aiders and abetters of severe crimes against humanity" looks like it is a factual description of Tenet and their influencer portfolio. Vigilance is thus advised: Wikipedia should not be like Tim Pool and freely waive its due diligence here. Dysmorodrepanis2 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dysmorodrepanis2, the extended circumstances of this RfD also suggest it is not a bad idea to check the nominator's log for bad-faith editing activity. is an outrageous personal attack on an active new page patroller who is quite familiar with the guidelines for deletion discussions. Please remember to WP:AGF, thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there are a lot of keep !votes on this AfD but few engage seriously with wikipedia policies or the concerns of the nominator. Those arguing for keep, if you could address issues of WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME, that would be very helpful. It is very obvious that we will be covering Lauren Chen on wikipedia somewhere. The question at hand is whether it is appropriate to have a standalone biography for her, given the WP:BLP concerns. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Here is my attempt to directly address this: WP:BLP1E means that all three of these conditions need to be met, to delete this.
    Direct quote of the WP:BLP1E

We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met

    1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
    2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
    3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.


Argument for each condition:
1- There are reliable sources that cover her in three separate events: see: here here, and here,
2- She will not remain a low profile individual, as this case will continue to evolve, and in either case, she was not a low profile individual to begin with.
3. The event is very significant

In this case, every single condition is not met, let alone, just one condition not being met. In this case, therefore, it seems clear that it should not be deleted on the basis of WP:BLP1E.

This is a Kremlin backed, right wing influencer attemting to hide her online profiles. DO NOT ALLOW HER TO DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.217.34 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Chen may be attempting to delete this page to stop others from learning about the serious accussations against her. Kiluvitar101 (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've done a date limited google search, from December 2023 to August 2024 [9] to try and filter out the recent noise... There just isn't enough about her in RS. A ton in the GBNews [10], which seems like OAN and the like, I'd not call it a RS. There's the Singapore piece I linked in my first comment, this in the Daily Beast [11], which is a marginal source. Even in the years before that, the Tampa Bay article is all there is [12]. She was just another opinionated person online that no one noticed (outside of her core audience), until this scandal happened. She's just not notable, at this point in time. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets significant coverage IMO with reliable source articles about her and/or mentioning her going back to 2019 being cited. Kiwichris (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Swinxy's sources and Paul's analysis above. I commend the nominator for her courage and would not oppose a merge. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge based on the comments above, it is clear that editors are politically motivated to "Keep" and not making fact-based recommendations. This page belongs in a catalog related to suspected Russian influencing. I am a right-wing media consumer and I have never heard of Lauren Chen until the scandal. This scandal constitutes the majority of her notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B11E:FABB:B905:BD29:9318:CCEF (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it is clear that anybody making this type comments is politically motivated. Is there something false in this page? Is it documenting the reality? Then why do you want to delete it? Do you want to cover it up? As a right wing voter are you not agreeing with Trump buddy Elon Musk about freedom of speech? Now you want to delete what is not in your interest? 188.92.254.84 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IPv4, please remember to WP:AGF and don't accuse others of attempting some kind of political cover-up for saying something innocuous like "the scandal constitutes the majority of her notoriety". -- asilvering (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To preserve the integrity (what little is left) of WP... this article which was hastily made after the scandal, and appears to be primarily about the allegations, should be merged with an already exsisting page dedicated to other such allegations. It's pretty straightforward. Now you're going on erratically about political figures that have nothing to do with the article or the scandal. You're proving my point. 2600:1015:B11E:FABB:B905:BD29:9318:CCEF (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Tenet Media There were insufficient sources to create an article before she was mentioned in an indictment. Most of the material in the article is a duplication of Tenet Media, the company she co-founded with her husband. I'm surprised no one has created an article about her husband, so they could cut and paste most of this article over there.
    After merging the article, it may be that Chen becomes notable in her own right. In that case her subsection in Tenet Media would expand so that a daughter article would make sense.
    It's possible that the DOJ will follow their example in the Russian troll farm story. Drop the charges against Russian nationals and never charge anyone in the U.S. If so, there may be nothing to add to the story as Chen and her husband slip back into obscurity.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. — The Anome (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:HEY. I understand that someone might have thought this was a case of BLP1E, but after all the secondary sources and ongoing coverage that have been found about the subject, no reasonable person would believe this person is not notable. I recall that Procul Harem was nominated years ago, but even then it was because of ignorance. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lauren_Chen&oldid=1245262620"