###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q98406706: Christine Weston Chandler (Q98406706) : American artist and internet personality : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion ) Violates BLP Trade ( talk ) 09:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC) @ GorillaWarfare :-- Trade ( talk ) 10:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC) @ GorillaWarfare :-- Trade ( talk ) 10:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC) On hold This item is linked from 1 other. -- DeltaBot ( talk ) 10:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC) @ Trade : There’s a sitelink to ru.wp so deletion isn’t really an option at the moment. Aren’t your concerns more of an Oversighter situation? -- Emu ( talk ) 10:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC) The ru.wp article have been marked for deletion for almost six months now@ Emu :-- Trade ( talk ) 10:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC) @ Trade : There’s a sitelink to ru.wp so deletion isn’t really an option at the moment. Aren’t your concerns more of an Oversighter situation? -- Emu ( talk ) 10:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC) The ru.wp article have been marked for deletion for almost six months now@ Emu :-- Trade ( talk ) 10:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC) @ Trade : There’s a sitelink to ru.wp so deletion isn’t really an option at the moment. Aren’t your concerns more of an Oversighter situation? -- Emu ( talk ) 10:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC) The ru.wp article have been marked for deletion for almost six months now@ Emu :-- Trade ( talk ) 10:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC) @ Snackmurat : from what I understand, some users on the English WP absolutely want Chris Chan/Christine Weston Chandler to be outside of any Wikiproject (it may be a consensus, but it does not seem like); see for example here , here , and here . I must say I do not really understand those people's decision; from what I get, they believe creating a Chris Chan article or Wikidata Item is a form of harassment even if the article or item is properly sourced by reliable sources. Veverve ( talk ) 13:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Just because a reliable source discusses someone doesn't mean that a Wikipedia article should exist. There are many people who are mentioned in reliable sources who aren't considered notable by Wikipedia standards. The fact is that these articles have been used as weapons to humiliate the subject who has been a harassment target of internet trolls for over a decade now. BLP takes priority of RS. 2601:1C0:6D00:A560:F478:E2DC:FAB:423D 04:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC) @ Snackmurat : from what I understand, some users on the English WP absolutely want Chris Chan/Christine Weston Chandler to be outside of any Wikiproject (it may be a consensus, but it does not seem like); see for example here , here , and here . I must say I do not really understand those people's decision; from what I get, they believe creating a Chris Chan article or Wikidata Item is a form of harassment even if the article or item is properly sourced by reliable sources. Veverve ( talk ) 13:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Just because a reliable source discusses someone doesn't mean that a Wikipedia article should exist. There are many people who are mentioned in reliable sources who aren't considered notable by Wikipedia standards. The fact is that these articles have been used as weapons to humiliate the subject who has been a harassment target of internet trolls for over a decade now. BLP takes priority of RS. 2601:1C0:6D00:A560:F478:E2DC:FAB:423D 04:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC) @ Snackmurat : from what I understand, some users on the English WP absolutely want Chris Chan/Christine Weston Chandler to be outside of any Wikiproject (it may be a consensus, but it does not seem like); see for example here , here , and here . I must say I do not really understand those people's decision; from what I get, they believe creating a Chris Chan article or Wikidata Item is a form of harassment even if the article or item is properly sourced by reliable sources. Veverve ( talk ) 13:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Just because a reliable source discusses someone doesn't mean that a Wikipedia article should exist. There are many people who are mentioned in reliable sources who aren't considered notable by Wikipedia standards. The fact is that these articles have been used as weapons to humiliate the subject who has been a harassment target of internet trolls for over a decade now. BLP takes priority of RS. 2601:1C0:6D00:A560:F478:E2DC:FAB:423D 04:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC) @2601:1C0:6D00:A560:F478:E2DC:FAB:423D: Apparently, there is a consensus to memory hole the person from WP en , even the mention of their name , and the person's pseudonym is forbidden in WP en talk pages . Even wanting to add the person's name in an article is enough to be suspected to be a harasser apparently, judging from this WP en admin's comment. Obviously, it is not about sources or BLP in WP en. There also seems to be an active struggle to memory hole the person from other WProjects . Veverve ( talk ) 22:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Apparently this is a difference of opinion among enwiki and ruwiki. I don't think wikidata should be in the position to choose between them. I understand the bullying and harassment issues, but if all wikiprojects should avoid using the name and pseudonym of the subject here, it should be an international decision, perhaps by the m:Ombuds commission ? Lymantria ( talk ) 07:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Apparently this is a difference of opinion among enwiki and ruwiki. I don't think wikidata should be in the position to choose between them. I understand the bullying and harassment issues, but if all wikiprojects should avoid using the name and pseudonym of the subject here, it should be an international decision, perhaps by the m:Ombuds commission ? Lymantria ( talk ) 07:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Apparently this is a difference of opinion among enwiki and ruwiki. I don't think wikidata should be in the position to choose between them. I understand the bullying and harassment issues, but if all wikiprojects should avoid using the name and pseudonym of the subject here, it should be an international decision, perhaps by the m:Ombuds commission ? Lymantria ( talk ) 07:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Apparently this is a difference of opinion among enwiki and ruwiki. I don't think wikidata should be in the position to choose between them. I understand the bullying and harassment issues, but if all wikiprojects should avoid using the name and pseudonym of the subject here, it should be an international decision, perhaps by the m:Ombuds commission ? Lymantria ( talk ) 07:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Apparently this is a difference of opinion among enwiki and ruwiki. I don't think wikidata should be in the position to choose between them. I understand the bullying and harassment issues, but if all wikiprojects should avoid using the name and pseudonym of the subject here, it should be an international decision, perhaps by the m:Ombuds commission ? Lymantria ( talk ) 07:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Apparently this is a difference of opinion among enwiki and ruwiki. I don't think wikidata should be in the position to choose between them. I understand the bullying and harassment issues, but if all wikiprojects should avoid using the name and pseudonym of the subject here, it should be an international decision, perhaps by the m:Ombuds commission ? Lymantria ( talk ) 07:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Apparently this is a difference of opinion among enwiki and ruwiki. I don't think wikidata should be in the position to choose between them. I understand the bullying and harassment issues, but if all wikiprojects should avoid using the name and pseudonym of the subject here, it should be an international decision, perhaps by the m:Ombuds commission ? Lymantria ( talk ) 07:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Apparently this is a difference of opinion among enwiki and ruwiki. I don't think wikidata should be in the position to choose between them. I understand the bullying and harassment issues, but if all wikiprojects should avoid using the name and pseudonym of the subject here, it should be an international decision, perhaps by the m:Ombuds commission ? Lymantria ( talk ) 07:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Apparently this is a difference of opinion among enwiki and ruwiki. I don't think wikidata should be in the position to choose between them. I understand the bullying and harassment issues, but if all wikiprojects should avoid using the name and pseudonym of the subject here, it should be an international decision, perhaps by the m:Ombuds commission ? Lymantria ( talk ) 07:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Just because we are forced to keep the item (due to WP article), it doesn't mean that we have to take part in RU Wikipedia's decision. If nobody protests, i propose that we blank the item except for interwiki links and delete the past revisions as the potential BLP issues vastly outweighs the need for 'archiving the individuals life'. Or whatever euphemism you prefer. @ Lymantria : Thoughts? -- Trade ( talk ) 20:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Apparently this is a difference of opinion among enwiki and ruwiki. I don't think wikidata should be in the position to choose between them. I understand the bullying and harassment issues, but if all wikiprojects should avoid using the name and pseudonym of the subject here, it should be an international decision, perhaps by the m:Ombuds commission ? Lymantria ( talk ) 07:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Not done This has been in RfD limbo for two months. There is a valid sitelink to ru.wp with no indication that it will be decided any time soon. Feel free to reopen this request if ru.wp decides to delete. -- Emu ( talk ) 10:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)