This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This draft is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
Well, can't said I won't be entertained by the inevitable WP:ANI fight this'll start. It's consensus that Chris Chan doesn't meet notability and every single permutation of their name is WP:SALTED. See [1], [2], [3]and the time ANI killed a draft [4] (This is not an exhaustive list, seriously). At some point we might just need to write an WP:ESSAY on why Chris Chan can't be an article since we seem to be debating this once a year. Do with this information what you will, though I'm not exactly impressed by the sourcing currently being employed. 🏵️Etrius ( Us)17:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it is an un-submitted draft. Personally, I don’t think it’s appropriate to decide an individual is not notable when it’s clear there are likely other, non-policy-based considerations at-play, here, but I will refrain from making any accusations. The source assessment is looking halfway-decent, in my opinion. I digress, but I don’t think an occasional re-review of this topic — and others in the same boat, that is — is a bad thing. If there are solid policy-based arguments then those that would argue against creation of such an article have nothing to worry about (and I will be the first person to argue against such creation if said arguments are compelling). MWFwiki (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, no. Listen, if it was my design she'd have a locked article and we'd be done with this nonsense. But it isn't my design, and the policy is very clear. It's a WP:BLP issue [5], same with Sonichu [6] It won't be unsalted: [7] Drafts have been killed before: I reported this one AFC will delete this the moment it's been submitted: [8], [9] or worse yet WP:ANI will take notice and shut it down. Think about it practically, even if you think it deserves to stay in draftspace, it will die the moment it ends up at AfC. There is practically no way to make an article that doesn't turn into either an WP:ATTACKPAGE or fall into complete chaos (A lot of bans would be required). After the whole alleged incest debacle 4ish years ago, every possible means by which an article could be made has been exhausted. Maybe some day, but its WP:TOOSOON to know for certain. To quote a far wiser user than me:[10]
Even if such a list is in theory encyclopedic, verifiable, and notable as a list, the potential risks and BLP disasters that would be in tandem with it make it more trouble than it's worth. A good comparison would be to infamous internet figure Christine Weston Chandler, who almost certainly passes WP:GNG at this point but whose article on here would attract too many trolls for it to be worthwhile and is therefore rightfully salted.
homie, once again — for the five millionth time — it's a draft. And as a matter of fact, as part of this here draft, we're also actively conducting a source assessment for it right here. I will definitely agree that the current version does not meet the encyclopedic standards we strive for, I would also like you to know that you can rest assured that some of us, much more — ahem — experienced folks are certainly on the case, here to ensure that every single keystroke meets WP standards. Felt friend (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that is your opinion. However, “it’s a lot of work” and “people might vandalize it” are absolutely not policy arguments against the creation or retention of an article. Vaguely gesturing towards (possible) BLP issues of an article that doesn’t even exist (in the mainspace) isn’t an argument, either. We have policies and procedures in-place to deal with harassment, brigading, vandalism, etc.
Christine is not the first person to be controversial nor does her controversial status really warrant consideration (indeed, it may bolster notability, but that is a separate argument).
Again, if the policy arguments against the creation of such an article are so strong, then they should withstand occasional scrutiny. I genuinely believe that this is a healthy and reasonable practice. MWFwiki (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
