Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julien Blanc

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.

Julien Blanc

The result was Keep - he is clearly notable as one of few people to be excluded from Australia and UK for his activities. There are multiple newspaper and other "straight" news stories (and not merely op.eds and other such polemics). The alleged poor state of the article is not a reason to delete, though it may be a reason to improve the article. The alleged infamy and bad character of the individual concerned is also not a reason to delete. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is only based on recent news and highly biased. Paulkroka (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2014‎ (UTC) — Paulkroka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Multiple sources from news organisations around the world suggest that Julien Blanc is likely to be notable for some time to come, whether or not his career turns out to be sustainable in the long term. He has had his visa revoked in one country (Australia) after only a few weeks in the spotlight and is now informally blocked from entering several others. The situation in Canada and the UK is currently unclear, but in the UK, it now involves our senior politicians, as it did in Australia. That he should have had such an impact in such a short space of time, with a large number of reliable sources, is unusual.

As an end to the 'pick-up artist' phenomenon is not in sight, contributors to media sources international are likely to refer to Julien Blanc for the foreseeable future, even if campaigners in several countries succeed in him being refused an entry visa. As the two principal issues are the nature of his instruction to men who wish to date/seduce women and whether he is a suitable person to be admitted to overseas jurisdictions, Mr Blanc has passed out of the realms of WP:BLP1E

I think Julien Blanc's notability has been established. Philip Cross (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This is not about notability. Wikipedia is NOT the news. The article is currently a collection of citations of biased news articles from the last two weeks. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. Paulkroka (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. See WP:DISCUSSAFD. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This two-day old article should be improved rather than deleted. Subject passes WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and WP:ONEEVENT. See WP:PRESERVE and WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality on how to improve the article's neutrality; bias can be addressed by rewriting passages. Wikipedia policy does not object to basing articles on recent news/events. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Per Philip Cross and 82.136.210.153. Paulkroka's argument that news articles used as sources in this article are "biased" is not persuasive: as of this writing, the article has 41 sources from news organizations in multiple countries, including such well-regarded news organizations as The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Age — just to name a few — which fulfill the qualifications of being reliable published sources. That they tell a similar story of Julien Blanc's controversiality is not in itself an indication of bias: Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy does not require an article to present all possible points of view but rather to present "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" — thus, if there are reliable published sources which present a different view of Blanc's controversiality, then the proper avenue is to introduce properly source information from those sources (if any, in fact, exist), rather than simply to decry the supposed "bias" of reliable sources with which an editor personally disagrees.

Paulroka's argument that "this is not about notability" is also not persuasive. While Wikipedia is not a newspaper, the involvement of senior government officials in both Australia and the UK indicate not only that Blanc's notability has expanded beyond the pickup artist "movement" and controversies about its relation to issues of sexual violence and racism, but into the realm of government policy, which is likely to have an effect on government policies in multiple nations for years to come — as is discussed in the source that led me to this article — today's broadcast from the Public Radio International program "The World" — "Britain debates banning American 'pick-up artist' Julien Blanc from entering the country".

This article could be improved by adding additional biographical information about Julien Blanc to put his activities into some kind of biographical context.

While anyone can edit Wikipedia, I also want to note that user Paulroka appears to have created a Wikipedia account only today, and his only contributions thus far have been to advocate for deletion of this article. — Yksin (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I usually add contribution without an account. I created the account since otherwise I would not have been able to start the call for deletion. Paulkroka (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think any issues of one-eventism are over-ridden by the sheer weight and depth of coverage. Added to that is the involvement of political figures in the UK and Australia (and not just low-ranking figures either, Cabinet ministers), which puts him further over the notability threshold. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Depth of coverage is irrelevant. What matters is whether issues with regard to the person persists. This is not known since the coverage is only recent. Recentism par excellence. Mootros (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremist activist groups, major news corporations, and politically motivated politicians, are using Julien as a scapegoat, for their own special interest. These special interest include raising political influence by taking down a so called, "international rapist", creating fabricated headlines for increase viewer numbers, creating a reason to financially support extremist activist groups, creating political headlines, drama, the list goes on of why these parties would largely play an active role in accusing Julien. They have extremely skewed the facts leaving a highly negative connotation of who Julien Blac is as a person, evidence used to condemn Julien was taken completely out of its original context, they continue to pursue Julien even after proof of major miss uses in evidence. Wikipedia is about the facts, not information taken from bias media sources that was just copy and pasted. The page of Julien Blanc must be intensely improved upon, or completely deleted due to the bias nature of news sources. Podikimosky (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Podikimosky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved your comments, Podikimosky, because it is normal to add them in chronological order. Philip Cross (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A lot of claims about "bias" there, but again: all the sources cited for the article meet Wikipedia criteria for reliable published sources. If there are reliable published sources which present other points of view about Julien Blanc or his methods, or which substantiate your assertions about the "special interest" or motivations of Blanc's critics or of the news media which have been reporting on him, then it would improve the article (in line with Wikipedia policies about neutral point of view) to add information based on those sources (properly cited). At the moment, though, all I see are unsupported assertions, nor have you cited any Wikipedia policies to support your position. — Yksin (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While anyone can edit Wikipedia, I want to note that user Podikimosky appears to have created a Wikipedia account only today, and his or her only contributions thus far have been to advocate for deletion of this article. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of this page is biased against Julien, and a majority of the content comes from the past few days. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Redflorist (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recentism par excellence! Mootros (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, albeit for all the wrong reasons. Deb (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While not a likeable figure, who people may not think is needed in a encyclopedia, i must vote keep as is the wide coverage in multiple sources, including Forbes/Time. Plus one of the few if not the only person banned from entering countries for something other then criminal charges/political views. The state of the article can be improved though. Comparable to Zoe Quinn and her coverage i think. GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is heavily biased and reads as though it is a news article written by extremist feminists, as it draws information from news sources, which are deemed to be inaccurate by many. I would vote for the article to be kept if it didn't state all the media bulls*** as fact. They should be stated as controversy. Heavy use of the phrase 'according to' would be appropriate. Otherwise this article has no place in wikipedia. Here are some resources from the other side for people who want to keep the article and make it neutral. http://g00.se/truth-behind-julien-blanc/ , http://www.rsdnation.com/node/551104 , http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1411/17/nday.04.html Edit: It would be more suitable to create an article for this event, as opposed to a biolgraphy. This article does not meet the guidelines WP:BLP1E in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.112.229 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 18 November 2014‎ (UTC) — 213.7.112.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I moved (and signed) your contribution, 213.7.112.229, because it is normal to add them in chronological order. While anyone can edit Wikipedia, I want to note that editor 213.7.112.229's only two contributions thus far have been 1 minor edit of the article that is subject of this discussion and 1 edit to advocate for deletion of said article. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, I'm not an experienced editor (I've written articles from other IPs, but not much) however I use wikipedia a lot and am aware of the general guidelines for encyclopedia articles and specifically wikipedia, so I feel I have the right to comment on what is wrong with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.112.229 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 213.7.112.229, I signed your follow-up comment. In future, it would be helpful if you'd remember to sign your posts by typing in four tildes in at the end. Thanks. — Yksin (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Controversy is not part of what should be in an encyclopedia. It should display facts and objective views, and does not objectively say anything about Julien Blanc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.51.39 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 18 November 2014‎ (UTC) — 27.32.51.39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I moved (and signed) your contribution, 27.32.51.39, because it is normal to add them in chronological order. While anyone can edit Wikipedia, I want to note that editor 27.32.51.39's only contributions thus far have been to advocate for deletion of this article. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Various participants in this discussion have few or no other edits outside this topic. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The calls for deletion seem to be because the article is one sided and not very good, rather than because the subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Improvement would be a better option.Stainless316 (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The only sources are a collection of biased news articles driven by his opponents. Consider: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. AndySBlair (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2014 (GMT) -- this pre-struck !vote was actually added by 81.149.136.134 (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC) -- user AndySBlair doesn`t exist. Ivanvector (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 81.149.136.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Article is a summary of events that have happened in the past few days and biased articles. It is not a true representation of the person and his life and portrays Jullien in a bad light deforming his character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.96.142 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

85.211.96.142 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep and improve - He has been subject of news reports on multiple continents. He is notable enough to warrant an article, even if that notability is negative in nature. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep. Coverage from major news sources on multiple continents. Yes, it's negative coverage; we don't only write about nice people. --GRuban (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is based on facts / articles which were taken totally out of context. They slander Julien Blanc and the name of Real Social Dynamics. The article is also extremely biased and offensive against Julien.— 185.44.151.208 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC).Dylanfromthenorth (talk)[reply]
Keep. He really is in the news all over the world, unambiguously meeting notability, and there really are a lot of people protesting him, backed up by indisputable primary and secondary sources. That's the end of the story to the question of deletion - the answer must be "no", the article should exist. Now as for content, by all means if people think something's imbalanced, they can be feel free to contribute to the editing process. But it's hardly like there's just been one biased editor dominating the process - there is a collective process underway with many editors. And hey, the more voices, the better the result. :) -- Rei (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Putative bias is a reason to improve the article, not a rationale for deleting it. The subject clearly meets the GNG. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My, but there are a lot of WP:SPAs here. Subject is clearly notable for his controversial views on the subject of attraction (putting it generously), and this notability is demonstrated by having been barred entry by a country and the target of protests in several others. Issues about neutrality can be solved with editing, but we don't delete articles just because they're about bad people. Ivanvector (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shirley Phelps-Roper, whom I think is a person of similar notability, has an article, so this guy should be notable enough. Don't WP:DEMOLISH the house while it's still being built. 206.188.87.3 (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we're not a newspaper, That's all I'm saying!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Whilst I'm 100% glad this tool's banned from the UK and believe this country's a better place without him ... I shouldn't let my personal opinions interfere with !voting... No matter what I think of him he's still notable (unfortunately!), So I'll have to say Keep. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is clearly notable with multiple coverage in reliable sources. The article is now semi-protected and has been rewritten from a neutral point of view. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable and subject of widespread coverage. Latest BBC article here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's not famous and his profession is fueling more potential rape cases, by giving out ill advised advise to men about how to 'pick up a women'. How can you possibly give a Wikipedia account to this vile man documenting what he has done, Which in the eyes of many people is wrong, Heck he's even barred from the UK now. Please also consider Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper.'.88.111.115.241 (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 88.111.115.241 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't just have articles on nice people I'm afraid; even the bad guys get one if they meet the notability guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, I get what you mean 88.111.115.241 (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this guy's ideas, either, but I'm fine with him having an article, on the principle that the right way to fight bad information is with good information. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG per the ref list Avono (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert5101945 added this comment to this discussion's talk page: "Keep Julien Blanc is a character of note, all be it for all the wrong reasons. He has much media interest most negative regarding his abusive approach to women. He promotes this approach to others charging them for his advice. Generally he has a negative attitude toward women. Wiki has many pages relating to the wise and good. I see no reason to delete the opposite Robert5101945 (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)" moved from talk by Ivanvector (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC) — Robert5101945 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep As one of the few people who've "been banned from the UK", he's clearly notable, even if it's not for reasons we might like. I don't like the man or what he does, but he is clearly worthy of an article. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep controversial figure who has received a lot of press coverage in reliable sources, and passes WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. As mentioned above few people get banned from a country for non-criminal reasons. This is Paul (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple jurisdictions banning him from performing or from even entering their countries is extremely unusual, usually something reserved for a few terrorists or a few political activists. As this is so unusual, he is clearly notable.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable enough to me, based on reading the news today. If the pickup artist and seduction communities don't have a popular face, they should, and he's likely to be (and stay) it. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so long as we are very careful to follow BLP guidelines. The fact that he is singled out for exclusion from several contries is unusual and notable. Jonathunder (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the visa refusals by themselves show notability. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is notable for being banned from more than one country, without actual criminal convictions. Likely to be referred to in future cases of people being refused visas. All the references to his activities come from reputable sources. Just because some people don't like what this entry says, that is no reason to delete it. nagoyablue (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: well sourced with independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is likely to only increase his notoriety for some time and the news stories have generated interest in this topic which is coaching men to date women. At the moment there isn't a lot of public information available and I think this Wiki page will be sought after for information for quite some time to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.251.185 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 20 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved (and signed) your contribution, 110.175.251.185, because it is normal to add them in chronological order. While anyone can edit Wikipedia, I want to note that 110.175.251.185 has made only one edit outside this topic. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the person has received coverage in multiple countries at different times as a result of outrage at his seminars. Passes WP:GNG and not a WP:BLP1E case. This keep vote should not be interpreted as approval or endorsement of Blanc or his methods, which I abhor. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. It is absurd to delete the article about a clearly notable person. Gui le Roi (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial coverage across at least three continents. Whatever problems our lords and masters at Wikipediocracy have with BLPs of the hopefully inconsequential, but per edict WP:Notable, they're going to have to be fixed by some BLP-regulating mechanism other than AfD. By policy, this odious guy is considered notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article should be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards. This is an important subject and there has been significant media debate and coverage, along with government involvement. That most of the news articles are negative is not relevant. Wikimandia (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable and has numerous sources. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I wrote a version of this under the Sandbox before the original writer wrote this version. He used some of my work in this page. I say it is a keep for the following reason: meets Wikipedia's notability requirement. It also meets the 3 pillars. From the looks of it, the deletes are mostly because the article seems single sided. However, *all* news mentions about Julien Blanc is single sided. This guy wasn't notable until the event, hence why its single sided. The only notable thing that was pro-Blanc was his apology. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've done the vast majority of additional editing on the article for the past two days, and have found a couple of WP:VERIFY sources that are less condemnatory of Blanc. I'm continuing to search for such sources in the interest of WP:NPOV. Anyone who can help with that please get onto the article's talk page. I urge people to remember this is an encyclopedia, and to leave their opinions about "odiousness" or "admirability" at the coat check stand. — Yksin (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - he's notable, even though for disreputable things. ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I removed many of the biased sources before posting this. Much of the writing still suffers from recentism, but this problem is correctable over time. Overall, I think the article is notable enough to stay. Connor Behan (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could use the attention of an editor experienced in writing neutral biographies on controversial figures, but I don't see how the notability of this person can be challenged. There's a whole stack of citations from reliable sources. Potential issues related to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM can be solved through the normal editing process. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable individual. Article is well sourced and informative. -FASTILY 02:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Controversial person, subject to protests recently. Expelled and banned from Australia (a decision taken at ministerial level). Well referenced. --Dmol (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2014 (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.