Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade

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.

The result was merge to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Once one discards the obvious one-edit SPAs, the comments that do not reference any policy at all, and the large number of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comments, mostly about Christine Blasey Ford, there is a consensus that this should not exist as a stand alone article, but there is not consensus to delete it. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Reade

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Tara Reade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to run foul of WP:ONEEVENT. Ms. Reade's allegations are already detailed at length in the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. There is no need to restate them here. This article should be deleted or merged into that article. This page was a redirect until today, that should be restored. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and perhaps WP:SALT as well. She has no notability beyond the allegation. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – No Notability beyond this one event. I checked the references section in the article, and this is what I found:
    • Ref 9 and Ref 15 – web archive of her own domain from April 2019; image-heavy CV-style page: "Non-Profit Consultant-Available for Projects"
    • Ref 16 – a 3-sentence bio at Women's Int'l Perspective from 2009, which mentions surviving domestic violence
    • Refs 1-8, 10-15, and 17-26 are about the sexual assault allegation.
Except for brief CV-like info, it is very difficult to find anything that is not about this event. Should be merged. Mathglot (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been noted on the Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation page.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete No notability outside Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. This page has been heavily discussed and there is not consensus to have a second article about Reade, duplicative of the allegation. Reywas92Talk 21:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saying a senator grabbed your junk 26 years ago is not as significant as killing a world leader, just a slow news month, cabin fever is rampant. Nothing she did in 2019 was notable, article arrived last month. Only noteworthy background to that one event, the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she is person notable for only one "event". However, this is not really an event, but just an accusation made by the person Therefore, I believe it is more appropriate to have this page about the person, rather that a page about notable, but questionable accusation by the person. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment above. I believe any content related to Reade in the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with consideration of the body of reliable sources that focus on the allegation as per WP:BALASP. "Unique content" about Reade may be factual and verifiable but not suitable for inclusion. We can't just decide that we need to include paragraphs of her biography somewhere or other because we think it makes for good reading if Reade herself is not considered notable and if few, if any, sources about the allegation present that information. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Yet also, of course, per wp:SINGLEEVENT, it's possible for individuals to be considered notable for our purposes despite their primarily being so due to one event.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, as a practical matter, the choices before us include:
- A. - delete (eg/ Zapruder film [but no  Abraham Zapruder  blp]; [no  Rodney King  blp)
- B1. - merge Joe Biden sexual assault allegation into Tara Reade (Cf.: Juanita Broaddrick; Karen_McDougal#Alleged_affair_with_Donald_Trump)
- B2. - vice versa
- C. - keep (Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination#Allegations_about_sexual_comments & Anita Hill; Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination#Sexual_assault_allegations & Christine_Blasey_Ford#Sexual_assault_allegation_against_Brett_Kavanaugh)
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Mathglot, the only content unrelated to the allegation is essentially a brief CV. I do not believe that Reade's CV should be included in the allegation article, so I favor "delete" over "merge". userdude 20:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You understand that means we remove the 2019 stuff, the story of her attempts to be heard, her off-topic discussions with people who did not mention assault when interviewed by journalists, and a lot of the "commentary" not related to assault. I think all that is significant encyclopedic content for a Tara Reade article. It's not on topic for the sexaul assault allegation. SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by "2019 stuff" you mean her previous allegation of inappropriate touching, then it belongs in the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article as background for the "2020 stuff" -- because it is discussed in relation to the sexual assault allegation by a lot of sources, it should go there. We should look to reliable sources for guidance on what to include. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's greatly complicating the matter, however. Half of what's currently in the allegations article is really off-topic. In the Tara Reade article, all the circumstances and history would naturally come within the topic. SPECIFICO talk 02:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing a general trend towards keep in recent comments, so I feel the need to expand on my delete rationale. As other users have pointed out, this appears to be an example of WP:PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY. Applying the general test: the article appears to fail criterion 1; passes criterion 2; may pass criterion 3. The reason the article may pass criterion 3 is Reade's 2019 accusations; however, the 2019 accusations fall under the purview of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. I am not dead-set on my delete !vote, but I have not seen evidence that the article passes criterion 1 of WP:PSEUDO:Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization?. The only example of coverage of Reade that is unrelated to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation is Mathglot's Ref 16. userdude 18:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: this should be deleted without merging, because any merge attempt would inevitably overturn consensus on Joe Biden sexual assault allegation in multiple ways. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Consistent with WP:ONEEVENT and let's face it, allowing this article to remain is step one; step two will be merging the sexual assault article into this article which will divorce the name "Joe Biden" from the story. EdJF (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ONEEVENT. Her role is very significant within the one significant event. Banana Republic (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm amazed by the double standard between this article and for example the article about Christine Blasey Ford, which was created at the time of Kavanaugh' sexual assault allegations. There's enough coverage within reliable sources to write a factual separate article. --Deansfa (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Christine Blasey Ford does not derive her notability from the accusation she made. To do so would belittle her professional accomplishments, being a notable person primarily for her work as a professor at a prestigious university. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Christine Blasey Ford absolutely derives all of her notability from the accusation she made, and the proof is that she didn't have her own article until she came out publicly with her allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. To keep her article but not Tara Reade's is a double standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.237.42.174 (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would have been credible if the article was created before Kavanaugh's controversy. It wasn't. Christine Blasey Ford became a national figure because of Kavanaugh's controversy. --Deansfa (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you trying to imply that Ford is somehow objectively more important than Reade because of her social class? I think I am reading your comment wrong, but the argument I am hearing is as follows: even though Ford only became a public figure because of her Kavanaugh accusation (evidenced by her lack of page prior to then), because she is associated with a prestigious university she merits a page, unlike Reade who is a nobody and should not have one outside the allegations page. There are two things I see wrong here: first off, is the flagrant classism such an answer displays. It emphasizes that even though neither woman had a page prior to their accusations, the elite woman deserves to be acknowledged as a human outside of the case itself, while the non-elite woman does not. This leads to my second dispute with your post: the implicit idea that someone getting a page is a merit of some kind. It's not. You don't earn a wikipedia page. It's not "belittling" to not have a wikipedia page. The vast majority of people who do important work will never have a wikipedia page; it does not mean they are not important, it simply means that they are notable by wikipedia's technical definition. I'm a little disturbed by the implication that you think Ford doesn't deserve to be "belittled" yet Reade *does* deserve to be "belittled" because she is not important enough by your standards--which again, have nothing to do with notability, only social class.67.168.189.62 (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though Reade may not have reached the level of national notability that Blasey-Ford has yet, it doesn't seem likely that media coverage of this allegation is going to slow down any time in the near future, and as such, details of Reade's personal life as well. I just don't see the point of deleting this article or redirecting it when it's very clear that there is becoming more and more to add to it with each passing day. Instead, what I suggest is that the article on the Biden assault allegation should be changed to an article about the various accusations of sexual misconduct he has received over the course of his political career, with the longest section being about Reade. 2600:1702:10A0:6DA0:D958:BA51:AC1A:8BAB (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC) — 2600:1702:10A0:6DA0:D958:BA51:AC1A:8BAB (talk) has made few edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: I've previously !voted, but wanted to add that this article fits the definition of a pseudo-biography to a T. The brief #Biography section has 22 references (footnotes 8–29); have a look at them. Even for biographical detail apparently unrelated to the "one event", such as, say, "resides in Nevada County" (note 8), her mother's date of death ("2016" – note 16), or "testified as an expert witness" (notes 22 and 23) are all from sources about the Biden assault allegations. The only exceptions are SPSes, or CV-like mini-bios (e.g., "earned a law degree" – note 29, possibly also a SPS). Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Keep This is a story in current news and has been for a couple of months, particularly since April 8. To eliminate Reade's identification from wikipedia would do a great disservice to our readership, remember, the reason we are doing this. We should provide answers to questions like; "Who is this person?" Perhaps some Biden supporters would love to find excuses for this story to go away, at least until he can get elected. Step one, make the accuser / victim go away. Serving their politically based interests is not neutral. Blanking any content for political purposes is improper. Trackinfo (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reader is already informed about who Reade is in the article on the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. However, she is otherwise not a notable individual, and telling people about various unrelated elements of her private life, like where she lives now, is silly when Reade has complained about harassment and doxing. As Mathglot wrote above, we are looking at a "pseudo-biography" as per WP:PSEUDO. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Trackinfo: I assume you and everyone here votes based on their understanding of policy and guidelines. Did you really intend to spend the last four sentences of your Afd comment (starting, "Perhaps some Biden supporters...") ascribing partisan political motives to those who interpret the guidelines differently than you do? As someone who has 13 years and 100k edits, you're undoubtedly familiar with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. And probably even WP:RUC. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Trackinfo: I have to agree an enormous amount of bad faith in your statement above. I assume following your logic that you're in favour of creating an article for every single Trump accuser? Assuming everyone here has a political motivation is contrary to WP:AGF. Glen 08:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, every Trump story should be told as best we can. That is our job. Personally, I don't like that these kinds of stories keep showing up about our politicians, but they do. We shouldn't report innuendo fabricated by bloggers. When it gets into major media, then we should report it. That is our policy. What I see is every time a legitimate story is durogetory to one faction or another faction, it is swarmed by partisans trying to hide it. Not just this article, most. Each time we give credence to these arguments, each time an article is deleted, we are allowing wikipedia to get censored. You encourage these political factions to hire operatives to do it more. Yes, 100K edits and 13 years, I have been fighting a long battle against censorship. Trackinfo (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my nomination above, I think this article may also run foul of WP:REDUNDANTFORK and that merging Joe Biden sexual assault allegation into this article would ignore discussions there and consensus against moving the article to include Tara Reade's name.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, she only known for this single event. Have article on event.--KasiaNL (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. There has been no notability demonstrated outside of the allegation she made. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt - For !voters unfamiliar with wp:ONEEVENT, please note that it reads"When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both …. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified...If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Elizabeth Short is only notable for a single event, yet she has her own page. All the protests are being made in bad faith. Gruffbenji (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article on Elizabeth Short, there is one on the Black Dahlia. And as that article notes, it is about BOTH "Elizabeth Short and her murder". Here we already have an article about Tara Reade's allegations, so it isn't really the same thing.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Gruffbenji:, @AllThatJazz2012: and Trackinfo. I would remind you all to WP:AGF. I would also invite you to reconsider your comments and have a look through the talk page and archives at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation to have some context about what is happening here. There have been numerous discussions there about starting a "Tara Reade" article, moving that article to a title which included her name (which was ultimately defeated) and the scope of that article. You are under no obligation to get involved there or to read the numerous and longwinded discussions there, but you might want to be careful throwing around allegations of "bad faith" and "shame" if you aren't prepared to do so.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Of course, re-naming the allegation article would only happen with a decision to merge it into this article. A merger the other way would not do so and neither would, per wp:ONEEVENT, keeping this biography as a companion article to it.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but as you well know there were also discussions about inclusion of information in a biographical section there which some editors cautioned could dox her or perpetuate a WP:POV, by including irrelevant details to suggest she was not being honest. That is one of the problems of a pseudo-biography whether a stand alone article or a section within another article. If this just becomes a place to talk about her different pen names (and suggest there is something sinister about that), engage in speculation about the meanings of her blog posts, air unverified cheque fraud claims, etc... well then this is really just a WP:POVFORK which might avoid some of the scrutiny that is taking place at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. This is one of the reasons we are not supposed to make biographies for people who are only notable for one event particularly when there is already an article about that event. And probably why you were discouraged from doing this before you created the article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No point except for the fact that Wikipedia policy supports it. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - There has been canvassing on Reddit here, as was previously noted by Zloyvolsheb in an edit summary.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also here: [1]. Ironically I'm a Chapo Trap House fan, and argued over a month ago to keep Reade's allegation from being disappeared from the relevant page, but a bunch of Chapo participants have come here to take up arms because we're all Biden supporters who make policy-based arguments in bad faith. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Reading those threads I guess it explains all the random users and IPs that have come out of the woodwork with Keep votes and no actual reasoning beyond because. Glen 16:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-cogent arguments ought be discounted, including as well any !votes-for-deletion above inexplicably citing wp:ONEEVENT as a blanket proscription(!)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In those cases we had no article dedicated to the event (each particular woman's allegation); instead biographical articles were created long after the accusations emerged. In Reade's case, this (pseudo-)biographical article was created after the article on the allegation, Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, was created based on the current news coverage and to avoid overwhelming the Joe Biden article. So, different situation. The Tara Reade article is essentially redundant, unlike the others. In addition to redundancy, that raises the issue of WP:POVFORK. If we had no article on the allegation, I would support a biographical article about Reade, but as we already have that article the appropriate step was to get consensus for a title change. That was suggested at several points but no consensus formed (see Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 5), so this additional article was created out of a redirect, bypassing the process that should have been used. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each biographical article is judged on its own merits in its own context. For example, Anita Hill is also notable for having been inducted into the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame; she has received multiple awards and an enduring prominence. So far Tara Reade's article is a pseudo-biography that repeats the information in the original article Joe Biden sexual assault allegation and adds some non-notable details that consensus has omitted from that article. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • user:Zloyvolsheb, consensus within each situation is determined independently of that within another. Citing wp:CONSISTENT, we see that inasmuch as other alleged victims-not-averse-to-their-becoming-public-figures (who've likewise received not just news but feature-article coverages by the Times, Post, New Yorker, Atlantic, and the like) have biographical articles, I agree with your "support of a biographical article about Reade," as well. Yet, citing wp:OTHERSTUFF, our support is able to be independent of whether editors at "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" come finally to the consensus for basic biographical info about Reade's inclusion there.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a policy-based argument. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rreagan007 I will strike my edit then, and come up with a better argument later cookie monster (2020) 755 18:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation – my earlier argument was faulty. I do slightly agree with Worldlywise but after examining the Tara Reade article virtually most of it is about the allegation and not about who she is independent of the allegation. This leads me to believe this is WP:BLP1E which would better be served in the Joe Biden sexual allegation article. Though we have an article on Christine Blasey Ford, she is independent on her own for her academic work. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation per WP:BLP1E. Only notable for that one event, no reason to have this seperate article that is essentially just a content fork. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Reade is not notable per WP:SINGLEEVENT, though the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation is notable. KidAd (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. In my opinion, the intense coverage of Reade and her story merits an exception to 1E, per the multiple precedents mentioned above. The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article is long (and presumably will only grow) even without Reade's biographical details, and readers are better served if this article is kept and improved, not deleted. Davey2116 (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article allows us a proper space to explain items of Reade's biography that are critical to understanding who she is/might be, but which would have questionable relevance in an article solely dedicated to the sexual misconduct allegations she has made. This helpfully supplements the article about the sexual misconduct. People's understanding of these claims are better informed when they have information about who is making these claims. Therefore, it is of use to understanding the incident to provide a biography of the individual making the claims. Additionally, WP:ONEEVENT does not strictly rule against making articles about people associated with one notable event, it merely urges consideration and caution with doing so. SecretName101 (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the information truly is "critical to understanding who she is/might be", then it should be in the sexual assault article anyway, which would make this article redundant to that article and filled with non-critical info on a non-notable individual. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is my concern exactly. To understand the allegations one does not need to know that years afterwards she had a child, nor do you need to know about non-relevant/notable blog posts or essays she wrote. The long sections about the allegations here are already covered in the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article. When you remove that whats left in this article is trivia about blog posts and details about her family, where she was born etc. If something is truely relevant to the allegations she has made, it should be in the allegations article. If it's not in that article, it is because rightly or wrongly consensus is currently against including it there. The solution to that is to raise it there, not to create a content fork.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the blp's summary of the subject's allegations are incorrect, the fix is to edit this part of the article. If items of her personal history are inappropriate, ditto. Blanket removal of biographical treatment from Wikipedia seems a roundabout way to address these issues. And if these type of things are content forks (dual treatments of an "identical" subject), WP will need to fix there being what's otherwise considered SUMMARY STYLE tree pairs, such as Zapruder film & Zapruder, Thomas hearings & Hill, Kavanaugh hearings & Ford, and the like throughout the project wherein companion articles either summarize or expand upon content within its partner upon a subject tree. Speaking of trees, a possible decision tree might go like this. Does wp:SINGLEEVENT preclude blp coverage of any individual notable primarily for one event, yes or no? If it does, then no matter what, there can be no blp. If it does not, then this question is no longer relevant. Does wp:PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY apply here? Same thing. If so, no go. If not, go to next question. Does the fact that there is a companion article on Wikipedia covering the event preclude there being a blp, yes or no? Same thing. Next question: Is she notable? Final question: Should there be two articles? (Zapruder/ Zapruder film.) Or, one? (Breonna Taylor's biogaphy being contained within the Death of Breonna Taylor and Neda Agha-Soltan's biography within Death of Neda Agha-Soltan; or else, the killing of Ahmaud Arbery's being contained within his biography and the beating of Rodney King within his, etc.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am not going to argue WP:OTHERSTUFF. Yes, I think she is only notable for one event which is covered elsewhere. Yes, I think this is a pseudo-biography. No, I am not going to try to argue about the irrelevant content at Talk:Tara Reade, because I don't wish to spend my time editing an article which should ultimately be deleted and restored to a redirect. If this article is deleted that would not have been a good use of my time.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except, as I very clearly said Darryl Kerrigan, not all things important to understanding who the accuser is are directly relevant to the allegations themselves, which makes them inappropriate for the main article on the allegations, and thus the main article will inevitably provide an incomplete picture on who the person making the allegations is. SecretName101 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She is only notable for the one event. What information would be key to understanding a complete picture of the accuser and her allegations, but not be relevant to the allegations article itself? Do you think we need to know that she had a child after, that she has written some blogs? What information are we talking about here? Because I tend to think any information which is not relevant to the allegations (the only reason she is "notable") is a violation of her privacy per WP:AVOIDVICTIM and an attempt to bulk up a pseudo-biography.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tara_Reade&oldid=1138820144"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.