Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whittaker family (2nd nomination)

Whittaker family

AfDs for this article:

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

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

This article lacks reliable sources and reliable sources do not seem to exist, suggesting the content may not meet notability requirements. Most information about the family is self-published (YouTube). Publicly available information on the Whittaker family stems from unreliable and/or content farm sources such as The Mirror US, The US Sun, UNILAD; etc. These sources contradict each other on basic information such as whether an individual is alive or dead. The few reliable sources on Google and Google News from local television stations are limited to the arrests and fraud investigation of Whittaker family members. Ave31 (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Ave31 (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: seems to be no substantive improvement upon the article since it was last deleted for Wikipedia:BLP violations. Almost exclusively references tabloids, Soft White Underbelly’s YouTube channel, and the Joe Rogan podcast. ~2025-32279-89 (talk)
Keep (I'm the creator of the article, so don't count it) : International coverage from different newspapers, I believe the article meets notability critera for that reason. From the languages I can speak, Spanish: [1], [2], [3], etc. French: [1], [2], etc. Even though the coverage in the US is mainly coming from tabloids, the subject has been covered internationally in various newspapers, some of them notable. I believe the article is relevant because of its international scope, even though I did not use these foreign sources to document it. From this perspective, rather than from the perspective of a purely American subject documented only by local tabloids, the article is relevant. I didn't really dig much but I'm pretty sure you'll have newspapers talking about this family in every language. Enough, not enough, I don't know, if it was up to me, it'd be enough to keep the article. Global Donald (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As mentioned above, the documentary received coverage in several languages (from Grupo Globo in Brazil as example [1]). Therefore, the rationale for the absence of reliable sources does not apply. Svartner (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. The articles above just repeat statements from the filmmaker and don't provide their own analysis, this is not surprising since they are not from the USA. So they cannot be used to establish notability about the family, at most, one can argue that the film he made is notable. His content has been described as "poverty porn", it is contrary to policies to build a basically biographical article based on it. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of exploitative videos are not enough for notability. I just deleted the claim from the article that "mainstream and tabloid outlets have repeatedly reported on the family", since the two sources were of low quality and didn't actually support the claim, they were simply examples for that supposed claim. We should also take WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE into account: "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." I don't think there are any high-quality secondary sources. "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care." Also see WP:LOWPROFILE: the subjects meet none of the criteria of being high-profile, and they meet most of the criteria for being low-profile. Also see WP:BLP1E: The subjects of the article are "notable" for appearing in a viral video, nothing else. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E. Additionally, much of coverage is low quality press of a tabloid nature. So fails WP:NOTTABLOID.4meter4 (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soft White Underbelly Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]