Wikipedia:articles For Deletion Ashley Gjøvik

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 speedy keep. Page was nominated in violation of an interaction ban, and no other users have !voted to delete. -- Tamzin^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 01:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Ashley Gjøvik

[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)

Not notable & WP:NOTNEWS - Article is written in a nice encyclopedia style, but most of the citations are not about the subject. The subject's article revolves almost entirely around subject's allegations during none of which offer substantiation from reliable sources, leaving the article feeling like the editor putting the cart before the horse. The article offers no accomplishments of the subject, other than in subject's academia, which is not notable. Sources are high-quality, but because the content is what seems to be unsubstantiated claims against a company, resulting article looks like WP:GOSSIP that was only news-worthy because the target of subject's allegations is Apple Inc., and during the summer of 2021 during the AppleToo event. I do not think we should publish every single person's allegations about notable entities on Wikipedia, and I think this falls under WP:BIO1E or WP:BLP1E. There is no lasting coverage beyond the employee activism (and complaints filed regarding it) events subject was involved in. Policy: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. edited 20:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Sebastien1118 ( talk) 09:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - subject has significant coverage in for example Bloomberg, Business Insider, Gizmodo Mujinga ( talk) 10:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Thoughts on WP:BIO1E? Sebastien1118 ( talk) 16:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. In-depth coverage in high-quality sources. The nature of the allegations make this a challenging article from an NPOV perspective but not an appropriate candidate for deletion. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 12:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Thoughts on WP:BIO1E? Sebastien1118 ( talk) 16:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Sebastien1118: could you please indicate that you added BIO1E to your opening comment after it was replied to. The best way to do so is explained at WP:TALK#REPLIED.
I don't think BIO1E applies here, as Gjovik has been covered by reliable sources in relation to multiple events. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 20:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Done.

I couldn't find events other than the employee activism wave from last year, can you share the others? Sebastien1118 ( talk) 20:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The part of the comment edit you missed is putting <ins> tags around the added material. The activism "wave" includes multiple separate events/actions. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 20:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Seems a little odd that Sebastien1118's very first edit is to propose this page for deletion. Regardless, there are articles which cover Gjøvik, in addition to her interactions with Apple (e.g., the article by Lucy Burton in the Telegraph, and the one by Kellen Browning in the New York Times). DaffodilOcean ( talk) 12:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply
@ DaffodilOcean: I am a 14-year IP editor. This is my first AfD, which requires an account. Please keep the discussion to the subject matter.

Less than one-third of the references are about the subject (and several don’t even mention subject), and all of them are the subject’s allegations. I have never seen a biography that consisted solely of news about complaints being filed. Coverage is supposed to be lasting. If none of these complaints amounted to anything, it explains why the coverage dried up, and this article is nothing but an Anti-Apple gossip article. Example: Subject requested a “right-to-sue”, which subject was granted. Subject did not file a lawsuit within the window, so the only coverage of this subject suing Apple, which would be notable, is that subject intended to sue. I would argue that inclusion of intention to sue is WP:UNDUE. I firmly believe this could be done with almost all of this biography based on the lack of lasting coverage. Sebastien1118 ( talk) 15:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Surprised to see this nomination, to be honest. A careful pair of eyes needed to ensure the article stays encyclopaedic, but AfD isn't cleanup and Gjøvik is clearly notable from the coverage presented alone. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Thoughts on WP:BIO1E? Sebastien1118 ( talk) 16:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment. The nominator's argument doesn't cite a relevant notability guideline in trying to declare the individual non-notable, though I presume the nominator thinks this article fails WP:NBASIC given that it's the GNG-equivalent for people. There's a credible argument that this passes that notability guideline, including The Telegraph, Gizmodo, and The Verge. WP:NOTNEWS appeals also feel like a misfire, since that policy is focused on the notion that not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and this is clearly not an event. But, I do have a concern about WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E—the only coverage of this individual appears to be in the context of the 2021 employee activism campaigns at Apple. I'm leaving this as a comment rather than a "redirect" or "merge" !vote for two reasons: (1) there are caveats in each of those policies for when the event is highly significant and the individual's role within it is a large one and (2) This article muddles the waters regarding 1E. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 15:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply
This article you referenced is not about the subject of this AfD.

The Telegraph piece is a continuation of the 2021 complaints previously published in The Verge, just brought to the UK. Sebastien1118 ( talk) 20:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I wonder if it would make sense to move these complaints to Criticism of Apple Inc., under 2021-2022 employee activism subsection (or something?) Sebastien1118 ( talk) 20:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply
My apologies for posting the incorrect link from The Verge. Thank you for posting the correct link. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 02:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I updated and added WP:BIO1E which I had meant to cite. Thank you, too. Sebastien1118 ( talk) 16:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: I think it inappropriate that Sebastien1118 (the nominator) continues to edit the article while this AfD is open, seemingly trying to degrade the article. For example, this removal of a secondary source as an 'extra ref' renders certain claims solely dependent on primary sources. Also, Sebastien1118's edit history shows a pattern that looks like canvassing and their behaviour here looks like borderline bludgening of this AfD. I hope they will be less fervent in their desire to see this article deleted and let the process proceed in peace. I would also like to call attention to the fact that the article was the subject of an unresolved discussion at WP:COIN less than six months ago, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 184. -- SVT Cobra 01:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep', easily notable. -- StellarNerd ( talk) 19:44, 13 June 2022 (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.