Jump to content

Talk:Vivian Jenna Wilson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SIGCOV

[edit]

It appears that in recent days there has been significant coverage of Wilson that meets WP:GNG:

CNC (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. QRep2020 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ONly in connection with MUsk, not without him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 13:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the OP. She had even been receiving significant coverage even before this, but she was choosing to be non-public person and thus it would have been inappropriate to have an article on her. Now that she is being quite public, it is time that there is an article, so long as it does not get too long and violate WP:DUE.
It is perfectly normal for family members of famous people, whose fame comes from their relation to or conflicts with a more famous relative, to have articles. What matters is their level of fame, not how they got it. Vivian has "a several paragraph article"'s worth of fame at present, and there's certainly more than enough content of interest to fill that. It's also worth noting that having this article allows for keeping the (already incredibly long) Elon Musk article shorter. So my vote is a strong support for keeping this article. -- Rei (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote here won't really matter, you need to give your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivian Jenna Wilson, since that is where the discussion about deletion is had now.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 09:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more GREL/MREL since the deletion discussion for context sake:

There's an irony here that it's "just because she posted another thread on social media" and that "it's still just about her Dad". Clearly there is SIGCOV, and based on the deletion discussion this was never in much doubt, the question/issue is whether the subject is deserving or in need of a standalone article, as it's still only about her transition. At some point it'd be good to have another discussion based on the actual criteria of WP:BASIC, not WP:GNG (that doesn't cover people per WP:SNG, even though we like to argue it about it a lot in AfDs for people). CNC (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD is over, do not attempt to re-litigate it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You understand what WP:DISCUSSION is for right? I hadn't even noticed that had gone to DRV to be honest, strong consensus for endorsing the close by looks of it. Until the next one I guess. CNC (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You commented on the AFD. And my point is, leave it a while (a year at least I would say) and see if she gets more coverage independent of who her father is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never commented on the AfD regarding those sources, as they didn't exist then. I'm just keeping this thread up to date with relevant SIGCOV for specifically this reason of seeing if/when there is enough coverage. CNC (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Dittman

[edit]

One of her posts in July 2024 suggested that her father, Elon Musk, is also Adrian Dittman and under this pseudonym on his X social media platform (formerly Twitter), Dittman (Musk) has spent tens if not hundreds of hours hyping Tesla stock, violating various securities laws, and deceiving a large user base into believing that products, technology and potential profits of Tesla are real. 129.222.192.227 (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a joke, it might be a clue - regardless, no secondary sources have reported on her mention. Also, who is Adrian Dittman supposed to be anyway? QRep2020 (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but offtopic for this article, and too much WP:SOAPBOX and WP:SYN. If Musk gets charged for securities vio over this, it'll be all over the news and then it'll be appropriate for the Elon Musk article. Without that, no. -- Rei (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decision to redirect to Elon Musk page

[edit]

I've read the deletion conversation and the review, and I'm afraid I find the arguments for deleting this page to be specious and quite possibly misogynist. If Brooklyn Beckham warrants a page, then I really can't see what the difference is here. Wherever fame comes from, it does make the famous notable and whatever they do becomes notable by extension. If my kids take some photos, it's not notable, if David Beckham's kids take photos it is - that's just the way celebrity works. Equally, if someone who is fairly famous has a child who accuses them of bullying then yes, that is best served under their page - if the richest man on Earth, who schmoozes with ex-presidents and whose satellites can be seen by everyone everywhere, is accused of bullying by his child, then they become notable in their own right. In a way, it's a moot point as this is a temporary situation - sooner or later she'll do something and by virtue of who she is, it'll be undeniably notable, and the decision will be reversed and the page reinstated. Btljs (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what notability is, the media have taken notice of THEM (on their own), I agree a nurse who saves a life should be more notable than some woman who gets her tits out. That is an issue with the media. If you want to get policy changes then it the notably page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're not trying to suggest that there is systematic gender-bias that goes as far as Articles for deletion? If you're going to go down that route, you'd really need some evidence of this, rather than just throwing around accusations. CNC (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add (based on the above) read wp:agf and wp:npa, we go by what RS say, if there is a bias get onto the sources and tell them to change how they act. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Describing the arguments as misogynist is not a personal attack per WP:APR at all, so please WP:AAGF here, rather than telling an editor with 20 years of experience to read AGF and NPA. Gender-bias on WP is otherwise well documented and is far from contained to the sources we use, hence its overall misogynistic atmosphere described by editors and documented by Sue Gardner remains an issue. [1] Whether some arguments were misogynist in nature would be better explained with diffs, and personally I think would be very difficult to prove, but whether gender-bias was an issue here is a worthy discussion nonethless. CNC (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I have 17 years of experience, yet you feel the need to tell me about a policy, what is the point, to head off a discussion before it goes down the wrong road, we all make mistakes, no matter how much experience we have. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you commented "a nurse who saves a life should be more notable than some woman who gets her tits out". Should I consider that in good faith? Feels like misogyny to me. Btljs (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as that is what notability is, it is do RS notice it, and a nurse who saves lives gets a lot less than some woman getting her tits out, or do you disagree that is the situation? Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not telling you to read policy that you have likely already read, I'm only reminding you of it. Hopefully you can see how this lacks the patronising manner of telling an experienced editor to actually READ policy, which by default assumes they haven't, rather just reminding them. At minimum I considered this rude and therefore clearly uncivil. CNC (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vivian_Jenna_Wilson&oldid=1240469619"