Project:Articles for deletion/Taylor Auerbach

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Taylor Auerbach}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Taylor Auerbach}})

Contested BLAR of a BLP1E. Launchballer 22:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• This is an odd case. Auerbach is notable for quite a few things (click above on Find sources: news), but none of that is in the article. As AfD is not WP:CLEANUP, I have to !vote Keep. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• This is where it gets complex. The article used to have that stuff in it. And ironically the very latest news source on the article subject is {{plainlink|https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/abc-friends-preelection-sob-story-wearing-a-bit-thin-on-facts/news-story/f8d4ba36ccf5a1680b669a4aafd7ce3c|a piece}} in The Australian yesterday reporting that this article has just been heavily rewritten. Uncle G (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I reverted an attempt to make this into a redirect without discussion. I have no opinion as to whether this subject is notable or non-notable, nor any necessary objection to the result here being a redirect. I do have a strong view about whether that de facto deletion should have been done outside of proper channels. Consider my action akin to contesting a PROD because it was a close enough call. Carrite (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I also think it was highly suboptimal or improper for the nominator here to gut the article before hauling it to AfD. This also is not the way that things should be done. Carrite (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Removing WP:BLP violations from articles is entirely the way that things should be done. Or do you really think that the (dead link) www.comedinewithme.com.au website would have described one of it's own participants as a "difficult and notoriously rude contestant"? As for the rest of the 'gutting', it removed absolutely nothing that related to the possible notability of the subject. Wikipedia isn't obliged to continue hosting promotional pap in articles just because there is an AfD going on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - A WP:BLP1E about a former gameshow contestant who was denied a TV job... nothing about this stub tells me why this person is notable or why the redirect was unacceptable. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Hint: Some of what is at Special:Permalink/1282926392 is verifiable. The article subject indeed used to work for Channel 7, and the Australian Daily Mail, and Daily Telegraph; and we know this because xyr professional career suddenly become fairly well documented around this time last year. Uncle G (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination is based on the current state of the article instead of the question of the notability of the subject. [https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/spotlight/103630464 Spotlight on Auerbach], [https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/spotlight/103682878 Coke for comment], [https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/defamation-exproducer-taylor-auerbach-announces-legal-threat-against-bruce-lehrmann-channel-7/news-story/e56a6b20675bc6699fa45ec43fc5d64b?amp legal threat], [https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/former-spotlight-producer-taylor-auerbach-sues-seven-for-defamation/news-story/cd1640801db42e0f265d5cc4e72c203d?amp Auerbach sues]. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Struck due to the developing discussion. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Question: I don't doubt the good faith of any unblocked participant here. Based on the only sources presented to date, is it really appropriate to host an article which is essentially a list of professional misdeeds? We are guided to discuss disagreements, and we certainly cover notable criminals, but where does this become a neutral BLP? BusterD (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• I'd have to suggest that WP:BLP1E would apply, at most (we can safely ignore the gameshow contestant stuff, as covered perfectly well in the article on the show). Nobody seems to be suggesting that the underlying legal/journalistic ethics/whatever mess is obviously noteworthy (such things are sadly routine), and I thus fail to see how mere participation in it makes Auerbach notable. If Wikipedia hadn't already been hosting a policy-violating promotional fluff biography, we'd almost certainly have ignored the whole thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• The sourcing is very difficult, too. There are other sources, but a lot of the sourcing available is tabloid newspapers reporting on the antics of people who used to work for tabloid newspapers. There are things like {{harvnb|Morton|2024}} but there's an awful lot of useless "X said Y" stuff too. Is this one person the main subject? No, not per the non-tabloid sources anyway. Indeed, much of the coverage has basically been answering the {{harvnb|Saeed|2024}} headline when it comes to the court cases. But yes, the subject to consider is definitely not the game show. Uncle G (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{cite magazine|magazine=The Saturday Paper|date=2024-04-06|issue=494|author1-first=Rick|author1-last=Morton|title=Inside the ‘dirty strategy lunches in media city’|url=https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2024/04/06/inside-the-dirty-strategy-lunches-media-city}}
• {{cite news|title=Who is Taylor Auerbach, the ex-Seven staffer at the centre of the Bruce Lehrmann Thai masseuse saga?|author1-first=Daanyal|author1-last=Saeed|date=2024-03-26|newspaper=Crikey|url=https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/03/26/taylor-auerbach-seven-sky-bruce-lehrmann-thai-masseuse/}}
• I've given this some thought and I really cannot decide whether directing readers to Bruce Lehrmann#Media appearances or 2021 Australian Parliament House sexual misconduct allegations#Legal proceedings or just plain deletion is the best answer. AndyTheGrump, Wikipedia definitely didn't ignore the underlying "omnishambles". ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• 2nd question: Now knowing the longterm page-guiding editor is a proven bad actor, the other question is: was this page created to cover the subject or instead to injure the BLP subject? It's an unusual biography subject who earns notability primarily because of their miscues. It certainly does occur, but it's quite abnormal. BusterD (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• In 2021 I had an experience at DYK when I was processing three articles for my QPQ and reviewed a page about a doctor BLP subject whose claim to notability was several malpractice claims. When I told the DYK submitter I needed to take some sources to RSN, the editor suddenly withdrew the nom. I checked in with an admin immediately afterwards and the page was quickly deleted as malicious disruption. BusterD (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• It doesn't really matter what the article creator's intentions were, unless there are some revisions that need deleting. We have the options:
• Go with Launchballer's rewrite Special:Permalink/1283344671 which basically ignores the article subject's entire known career, and possibly try to expand it to include that career. The sourcing on the career is reliable, but the career on its own is just working for various news outlets; and we don't want to turn this into a lop-sided account of the "omnishambles". I don't favour this choice, myself.
• Go with Launchballer's redirect at Special:Permalink/1283297913 which suffers from being quite a bizarre place to send readers, given how the subject is known. I don't favour this choice, either. I suspect that, people now knowing what the thing is that this person is really known in connection with, no-one else will think this to be a reasonable redirect target either.
• Redirect to Bruce Lehrmann#Media appearances which is the context in which the article subject is known, albeit that xe isn't mentioned there at all.
• Redirect to 2021 Australian Parliament House sexual misconduct allegations#Legal proceedings, again where the article subject isn't mentioned.
• Just delete the entire thing outright.
• The reality is that this is a small ripple on the edge of a rather large splash, at 1 remove from its centre. Uncle G (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - In view of the options above by Uncle G, I note that the first redirect option is a poor choice, and the latter two do not mention the subject. We cannot redirect to pages that make no mention, so a merge would be required in those cases. The subject is a journalist but not a notable one. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we certainly don't need to be covering non notable newspaper gossip. The content is not encyclopaedic. It can go. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - This person is a WP:BLP1E example at best. Think deletion makes more sense than redirect, as the subject doesn't appear to be notable enough or at least sourced as such as to be associated with any targets. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:*Which one of the multiple events are you referring to? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Fewer than three reliable sources. I'm counting each News cycle as a source. Oddly, if this were 1925, or 1965, he'd probably have gotten ongoing coverage for fighting the big guy, but in 2025's Murdoch-dominated media environment, he's just another brick in the wall. This isn't a criticism of us; it's a critique of sickness in society. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Article here since 2011. Not much coverage and subject is not encyclopedic. Ramos1990 (talk)

{{clear}}

: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.