Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Source assessment/CWC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does the article by Margaret Pless justify reopening discussion about creating this page?

[edit]

The included article by Margaret Pless has been found to count toward GNG, does not discuss the subject in the context of the same event as all of the others which count toward GNG; additionally, two of the Business Insider articles which were previously labeled as being questionably reliable are published under the Business Insider (Culture) section of the website, and therefore are reliable under WP:BICULTURE. While Pless's article mainly covers the subject in the context of online harassment, there is enough present to imply the subject's notability. CWC's work is also described or referred to as notable in multiple articles with count toward GNG. Several articles outside of English Wikipedia have recently been created about the subject without issue. With this in mind, would it be justified to reopen discussion about creating this page? Cerrathegreat (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Added a new source which counts toward GNG and does not involve the 2021 incident, after confirming reliability per precedent from Wikipedia:Source assessment/Barron Trump Cerrathegreat (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is not notability (which I am completely sure CWC has), but rather the possible harrasment the page would induce. At least that's English Wikipedia's consensus on this. CWC has a page on multiple Wikipedias, see Wikidata: Christine Weston Chandler (Q98406706) Skyshiftertalk 15:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I completely understand. I think there needs to be a discussion on whether there is enough coverage treating CWC as notable outside of the context of that harassment to warrant a page. From what I gather this seems to be the consensus when it comes to WP:AVOIDVICTIM; victims of harassment need to be treated as notable outside of the context of their harassment by GNG-compliant sources. CWC has historically not met this standard, but I think we may have reached a point where this is the case - many of these sources cover CWC outside of that context at least in part, and refer to CWC's art in particular as notable. Cerrathegreat (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is irrelevant; if it were then we would have had an article on her in 2022. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 15:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Created

[edit]

Given the recent influx of sources and reevaluation of existing sources, I have created a draft at Draft:CWC per WP:BEBOLD. Per consensus here, CWC should not be mentioned by name (or common pseudonyms) in this draft until if and when the page is approved, at which point her name may be added. Please be respectful if editing the page. Cerrathegreat (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

G10'd. I don't doubt your good intentions here, but there is no way we should even be creating drafts centered around this person. This has been discussed innumerable times (see WP:DEEPER), and there is no way we should be legitimizing harassment campaigns by creating WP:BLPs about people only notable for being the victims of particularly heinous ones. Sorry, but this is just not something that should be on Wikipedia. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfC CWC

[edit]

A recent influx and reevaluation of GNG-compliant articles on this page, which discuss CWC in a variety of contexts and refer to their work as notable, has sparked new discussion on whether CWC has significant encyclopedic value to justify a page. A draft has been created at Draft:CWC based on these new articles, as relative consensus has been reached regarding CWC's notability. Do the available sources imply an encyclopedic benefit to creating an article about CWC, and if so, does this justify creating an article? Cerrathegreat (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the past I was strongly opposed to a page on CWC, but I do have to admit that the sources available now build a much stronger case toward a page. In an era where people are actively being elected to office on ironic pretenses while hated by most of the country, the argument that an article is what CWC's harassers want can only stand so long as CWC herself has done nothing notable. The sources available at this time do, in fact, suggest that CWC is notable for her work rather than just the harassment she has received. I think the draft does a good job of showing that. Reading the draft, and disclosing minor COI as someone who has been targeted by Kiwi Farms in the past, I'll offer support for a CWC article so long as it, and its talk page, are protected. Alexishere13 (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest others assess the sources and draft themselves, and make a reasonable judgment, before posting their own conclusions here. I understand firsthand that this is an easy subject to make a knee-jerk decision on. Alexishere13 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making a knee-jerk decision here. This has been a constant debate for damn near two decades at this point. If notability was the be-all-end-all, we would have had an article on this much earlier. But we do have to take WP:Biographies of living persons#Avoid victimization into account here, and that weighs very heavily here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 18:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, and never. Wikipedia should avoid entertaining the "lolcow" subculture by granting them the satisfaction of 'legitimising' the targets of their harassment with articles on this encyclopedia. Whether you want to cite WP:AVOIDVICTIM or just WP:IAR, we stand to gain nothing encyclopedically from an article about Chandler or any similar perennial harassment target. If nothing else, the inevitable maintenance burden of ensuring that only appropriate material is included (and determining what that material is) in itself far outweighs any encyclopedic benefit. Athanelar (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think CWC - and specifically, the fact that she's just a normal and fairly uninteresting comic artist - does have encyclopedic value in the way of contextualizing the online alt-right pipeline, and the role of treating normal people as "lolcows" as a recruitment tactic. As long as an article doesn't give undue attention to the people harassing her or the events surrounding it, I don't think it legitimizes her harassment. In fact, while I don't think righting wrongs should be the main purpose of this article, I'd imagine that Wikipedia providing an objective and unsensationalized description of who CWC is would help limit these communities' abilities to draw in new members to harass her, because people being told to look her up would find her Wikipedia article first. I think that benefit would far outweigh any inherent harassment that comes from acknowledging her here.
To restate the obvious, I wouldn't be arguing this at all if notability was still in question. It's not, though, and I think there are many articles on Wikipedia right now with less encyclopedic value than CWC. Alexishere13 (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call someone who by default would fall into WP:CT/GG "normal and fairly uninteresting" when it comes to the far-right groups you're describing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 16:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically my point. CWC is interesting to them and them only, because they view her as exploitable. Any normal person would find her noteworthy on paper but otherwise uninteresting, and I think the contents of the draft get that across. Having an objective description of CWC readily available and easy to access online would make it a lot harder for these groups to spin her into someone who is "interesting" outside of their standards, and I think with that in mind, she does have enough notability and encyclopedic value implied by reliable sources where an article makes sense. Alexishere13 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yet she falls into a contentious topic by default. I invite you to re-read Athanelar's comment above about the maintenance burden. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 16:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think we just have different ideas on what justifies an article at the end of the day. I'll wait for more people to pitch in. Alexishere13 (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The matter isn't "justifying" an article. The matter is limiting the already-extensive damage dealt to Chandler's life by not broadcasting it writ large on a website that is within one of the top-ten most visited websites in the world and as a direct consequence destroying what little chance of privacy she has left. You argue that an article is solely a consequence of the existence of sources. This view ignores the almost-two-decades-long history of this matter both on and off Wikipedia, a key part of which is the desire for an article on her specifically to harass her even more by annihilating her privacy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 20:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm trying to argue at all, and I'm actually really sorry if it came off that way! I think the disagreement lies more in the belief of whether a Wikipedia about CWC would be, in and of itself, harassment of her. I think if everything is well sourced, the article is neutral, and it avoids giving attention to the people harassing her or unflattering things she's said or done as a result of that harassment, then it complies with WP:AVOIDVICTIM and isn't harassment itself.
I'm not trying to change your mind, I can see your point of view and think it's a philosophical disagreement more than anything else. Like I said in my other reply, I hope regardless of the consensus, we can at least work together to keep the resulting article (and discussions stemming from it) as respectful as possible, since that's something we both agree on. Alexishere13 (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Giving attention to the people harassing her" isn't the problem, not even close. Kiwi Farms would much rather stay invisible to the public eye while doing their thing. The problem is giving attention to Chandler specifically, in or out of the context of Kiwi Farms and their actions, since the effect of a Wikipedia article would end any chance that the harassment would at some point stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 22:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I really wonder whether anyone who supports this article would be enthusiastic about participating in the inevitable "RfC on which pronouns to use for Chandler", "RfC on whether to mention kiwifarms", "RfC on whether Sonichu should be a standalone article" etc ad nauseam; not to mention the simple daily burden of first cleaning up the inevitable endless TA vandalism, and then dealing with edit requests when the page ends up indefinitely ECPed. Athanelar (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if consensus decides that the article should be created, we should have one wide discussion to decide on every inevitable question ahead of time, then put a blanket moratorium on it for a year or so after that. The first question though is already answered unambigously by MOS:IDINFO which defers entirely to self-identification, as essentially every source after 2020 reports CWC self-identifying as female.
From what I've seen, most attack edits tend to make themselves pretty obvious and not use sources, so that would make things easier to sift through at least. I'm not denying there'll be issues tbc, and I emphasize with how annoying this page is gonna get sometimes. I hope that regardless of how it turns out, we can work together to keep things somewhat sane at least. That's something we both agree on, lol Alexishere13 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Skyshifter you've been active here, what's your opinion on the matter? Cerrathegreat (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
She is definitely notable and should have an article, as long as it is well-written, follows WP:BLP, etc. It is feasible in my view. Skyshiftertalk 19:33, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(that's a support from me) Skyshiftertalk 14:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A great many targets of harassment have Wikipedia articles, which makes the argument that an article shouldn't be created because it'll somehow increase harassment a bit dubious to me.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's "targets of harassment" and then there's Chandler, who has been described as the single most thoroughly-documented person in the world, and has numerous hours-long video essays and an entire online wiki entirely dedicated to documenting the history of her online behaviour and the harassment surrounding it. Athanelar (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To add on to what Athanelar states, the (living) people listed at Category:Victims of cyberbullying are almost all high-profile individuals with notability independent of being harassed, which I for one do not believe is the case here in either respect. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"the single most thoroughly-documented person in the world" - Not backed up by any reliable sources, as far as I'm aware. Nor is Chandler the only subject of harassment to have video essays or a wiki about them!--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but as far as I am aware the harassment began when she was a teen and has been ongoing the entirety of her adult life, both pre- and post-transition. It's extensive enough an entire website was founded specifically to further the harassment, and is very likely the "entire online wiki" Athanelar mentions. It's extensive enough I participated in debates about this when I was an administrator back in 2010 and have more-or-less participated in every debate about this since; this particular proposal verges on perennial status. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 15:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the arguments made above for her independent notability are that she is a normal and fairly uninteresting comic artist and that CWC's art in particular [is] notable. The reality is that her entirely unremarkable fanart would never have gained the kind of coverage necessary to substantiate notability if it wasn't for her overall notoriety; and it's impossible to divorce her art from the harassment considering that the art itself has been a focus of a great deal of that harassment. Any argument that she has notability beyond the harassment is complete bunk, because the plain reality is that nobody would be paying her any attention whatsoever if she had never been "Chris-Chan". Athanelar (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is CWC not a high-profile individual by WP's standard definition? She bills herself as a celebrity on Cameo and has responded to requests for comment from news publications in the past, as well as trying to reach out to notable creators for interviews and collaborations. Additionally, her published work, which has been covered by news orgs, does typically attempt to bring attention to her other projects. I can see an argument that she isn't notable independent of being harassed even if I disagree with it, but I can't see one that she's not high-profile. She seems to willingly and actively invite (positive) attention, in an informed manner, to this day. Cerrathegreat (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you there; it is worth noting that CWC did voice work for and has multiple references to her work in the highly prominent game Mewgenics, released this year.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And why did the developers of Mewgenics decide to reach out to her to voice work, do you think? Athanelar (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CWC actually reached out to McMillen for Mewgenics from what I understand, after having previously done artwork for The Binding of Isaac merch and enjoying the experience. The two seem to be actual friends behind the scenes. Cerrathegreat (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
McMillen's works also tend to include a fair few references to Internet culture in general. Him working with Chandler for Mewgenics shouldn't be considered significant in that regard; it'd be about the same as a film about American football hiring Tua Tagovailoa for a role. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 03:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in that regard; I believe Eldomtom2 was using it as an example of CWC not being a low-profile individual by WP's definition. It's an example of a recent case where she sought out high-profile attention of her own accord. Cerrathegreat (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another example would be CWC participating in an interview with Keffals in 2024, a project which CWC seems to have played a significant role in organizing. I think that interview is particularly important to this discussion because it highlights both CWC's informed awareness about her harassment and a willingness to discuss it on a high-profile stage. While its usefulness for an article would be limited because it's a primary source, I think one could make a sincere and good-faith argument based on this interview alone that even in the context of her harassment, CWC has sought attention as an activist speaking broadly and actively against online trolling, stalking, and other harassment. Cerrathegreat (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting point, actually. Part of the reason creating a Wikipedia article would've been victimizing toward CWC in the past is because at the time she openly expressed a desire for her harassment to be forgotten about, and wanted websites documenting her to stop doing so, and to be shut down. When she did seek attention, because she was overwhelmed at the time by the harassment toward her, it was usually clear that she wasn't fully aware of what the consequences of more attention would be.
Today, though, that doesn't seem to be the case. She's been online much less of the time, and so has been exposed to a lot less of the harassment, and seems less overwhelmed by it because of that. Online, she's set and followed much clearer boundaries about interacting with people. She's organized several intentional interviews and other public interactions in ways that make it clear she's aware of the risks, and has done a pretty decent job of mitigating them. And most importantly, she's actively looked for attention to talk about her past harassment and speak against harassment more broadly, and in some cases has said directly that she isn’t bothered by people talking about or cataloguing her past online. A Wikipedia article would no longer be victimizing toward CWC because she's demonstrated an overt desire, or at least willingness, for her past to be talked about even as she understands the risks. Alexishere13 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • If she ever passes WP:NPERSON, wouldn't it be righting a great wrong to continue to oppose recreation on the grounds that doing so would constitute a victory for the harassment campaign, or does RGW only apply when users try to add unsubstantiated content, not necessarily when users try to prevent content from being added despite it potentially being sufficiently supported by reliable sources? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO the distinguishing factor here would be whether CWC wants to be a low profile individual. If she does, then creating a page would in and of itself function as harassment, since it brings attemtion to someone who wishes to be forgotten; if she doesn't want to be low-profile though, which I no longer believe she does in almost any respect, then the argument of "not creating a page is the right move because it discourages other harassment" falls under WP:RGW from how I read it. Cerrathegreat (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    After rereading through the relevant entry in the AfC help desk archives, I realize that WP:RGW was already brought up there, and the counterargument was that it is merely a subsection of an essay which explains common problematic editing behaviours, it is not a binding policy we must follow, so this argument appears to not be as fresh as I had thought. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's only one way to look at it (the WP:BLPPRIVACY angle) and it's the one you seem to be focusing on because it serves your argument well. To my knowledge, none of the 'against' party have argued that the reason we shouldn't have an article about Chandler is because she wouldn't want us to have one, so you seem to be tilting at windmills a little.
    You haven't engaged at all with the arguments about the inevitable burden of maintenance such an article would create (which is also an argument that was brought up frequently in the previous times this would be discussed), nor simply the broader point about whether an article about Chandler would really contribute anything at all to the encyclopedia. Athanelar (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how an article on Chandler would cause excessive burden. Protecting the page isn't hard. Articles about notable topics benefit the encyclopedia. Skyshiftertalk 17:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I alluded to it above; Indeed, I really wonder whether anyone who supports this article would be enthusiastic about participating in the inevitable "RfC on which pronouns to use for Chandler", "RfC on whether to mention kiwifarms", "RfC on whether Sonichu should be a standalone article" etc ad nauseam; not to mention the simple daily burden of first cleaning up the inevitable endless TA vandalism, and then dealing with edit requests when the page ends up indefinitely ECPed.
    It's not as simple as "protect the article and forget about it." There's going to be major disagreements initially about what information is appropriate to include, which is going to require a lengthy consensus-building process to settle. Once that's dealt with, there's inevitably going to be a wave (or spurts) of vandalism from trolls googling about Chandler, turning up at our article, and wanting to add whatever sensationalist bits of information we haven't decided are encyclopedically appropriate; or one of the many communities obsessed with harassing and cataloguing Chandler just adding other juvenile vandalism. That's going to result in the article being protected, probably indefinite extended confirmed protection; so now every time some new piece of news comes out, there's going to be an edit request to get it included, and no doubt plenty of those will be sufficiently controversial to once again require ad-hoc consensus building and RfCs to settle.
    And all this for what? To satisfy what need? Because the largest open-source repository of human knowledge will simply be fundamentally incomplete without a heavily contentious, one or maybe two paragraph-long article about some internet figure who draws some shitty Sonic fanart, got bullied by the internet for nearly 20 years about it, and then committed a heinous crime? It'd be an incredible waste of editor-hours that could be better spent doing literally anything else to contribute to the project. Athanelar (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be more than willing to participate in the necessary discussions to build consensus about a CWC article, and others here have expressed similar willingness. Cerrathegreat (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I don't doubt it, considering your account is near enough a WP:SPA on the topic of Chandler. Athanelar (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If the hypothetical article's talk page becomes inundated with ECP edit requests, arbitration remedies may be put in place to discourage non-EC users from even discussing the subject asides from making constructive edit requests, as is the case for the 2026 Iran war. Inexperienced users who persistently make non-constructive edit requests on the talk page may face sanctions in accordance with such remedies. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there precedent outside of CWC for maintenance burden being the primary reason an article isn't created despite fulfilling most or all other criteria? Cerrathegreat (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia isn't a court of law, we don't operate on precedent. The aim of this discussion is to come to a consensus here and now about the question.
    If you want to talk precedent, the obvious precedent from the numerous previous discussions about the matter is that there shouldn't be an article about this topic, considering that's the consensus that the community came to again and again and again, even though in many of those previous discussions it was already acknowledged that there was more than enough independent notability to substantiate an article, the community just didn't want it anyway.
    Your challenge now is to present an argument as to why that previous consensus shouldn't apply, and "because there's no rules saying we shouldn't" isn't an argument; you've already been pointed towards WP:IAR and WP:BADIDEA. "Why not?" is not an argument; why should we include the article? Athanelar (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we should include the article because:
    • CWC produced a work of crossover fan fiction which has received more journalistic coverage than a vast majority of other works in the genre, and has explicitly been referred to as famous in its own right within this coverage; in terms of video game crossover fan fiction, it may have received the most coverage of any drawn work.
    • CWC has been cited by at least one publication (Kotaku) as one of the most significant examples of an online artist with autism.
    • CWC has been cited as perhaps the most significant target of online 'lolcow' culture, and unlike most victims of online harassment, cannot be considered WP:LOWPROFILE in this regard. This is because she has actively engaged with notable journalists in recent years with an express goal of drawing more attention to this harassment, and acting as an activist opposing online harassment more broadly. She has displayed awareness of the risks this attention may carry, and has still chosen to pursue it.
    • CWC's actions have played more of a direct role in contributing to her notability and influence than many articles which exist on Wikipedia right now.
    • While as you stated this is purely a matter of personal philosophy, I believe that any subject which has any significant level of encyclopedic value, which is independent of any currently existing page, and which has received notable and reliable coverage according to Wikipedia's standards, should be included regardless of any inconvenience it may bring to Wikipedia's volunteers.
    Cerrathegreat (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ask yourself this; if it weren't for Chandler's notoriety (gained through her harassment), would most of these things have happened? Would she have attracted any of the attention to her or her work that she has attracted? And would you even be arguing that she should have an article? Most of your arguments really seem to come more from a position of having determined yourself to get an article about Chandler published and then working backwards from there to find ways to bend yourself into pretzels justifying it.
    The attention to her "work of crossover fan fiction" is entirely as a result of her harassment. You can find a million pieces of work equivalent to Sonichu on deviantart right now if you go looking. The only reason anyone gave Sonichu any attention is because Chandler made it. Arguing that Chandler should be notable because of the notability of Sonichu is not only a WP:NOTINHERITED issue, but it's also just plainly putting the cart before the horse. I would be very interested to see if you legitimately can find any coverage which discusses Sonichu as a remarkable work of art in and of itself, completely divorced from its relation to Chandler (and the 'outsider art' quality that therefore comes with it). As a positive example; look at Terry A. Davis and TempleOS. While Davis has received a lot of coverage due to his eccentricity, mental breakdown and eventual death, TempleOS genuinely is, in its own right, a remarkable work of technological prowess, and so it gained a lot interest and coverage by virtue of that, not just because Davis made it. If somebody who wasn't incredibly troubled and mentally ill had written TempleOS, it would still be remarkable and one can fairly well say that people still would have taken note of it. If Chandler hadn't been the one to make Sonichu, it would still be sitting forgotten in the archives of DeviantArt, I can say that with certainty.
    CWC has been cited by at least one publication (Kotaku) as one of the most significant examples of an online artist with autism. Significant why?
    CWC has been cited as perhaps the most significant target of online 'lolcow' culture Precisely.
    CWC's actions have played more of a direct role in contributing to her notability and influence Her 'actions' in this case mean "doing and being things that caused an entire community to spring up around harassing her". Athanelar (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm genuinely not sure how to read your question other than "if Chandler did not receive attention for her work, would she have still received attention for her work?"
    Outsider artists, as almost a rule, tend to have work that is inherently offputting at first glance. You would be just as hard-pressed to find an article covering TempleOS without mentioning Davis' eccentricities and the operating system's poor user interface design, an article covering Rock 'n' Roll Will Never Die without mentioning Wesley Willis' struggle with mental illness and the on-its-surface samey and offputting nature of his music, or an article covering Philosophy of the World without mentioning the album's technical incompetence and the abuse suffered by The Shaggs during its production. While these creators' works all do have significant value, it's impossible to deny that their offputting first impressions played a massive role in their notoriety, and that without these offputting first impressions they likely would not have garnered nearly as much attention.
    I don't see how CWC, or the coverage Sonichu has received, is significantly different. Outsider artists almost universally tend to receive largely negative attention at first, before finding a small audience of people who appreciate the positive and sometimes revolutionary qualities of their work. Sonichu is covered by several sources here in the exact same manner. Cerrathegreat (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that with other outsider artists, like Davis, the reason for their communities paying attention to them is morbid fascination, curiosity, concern, etc. Chandler is fairly unique in that the attention and community that existed around her and her work was nearly entirely devoted to materially making her life worse as much as possible. When one of the salient questions about whether this article should exist is whether creating it would simply be fostering that community of harassment here on Wikipedia, the question of whether any of her work would truly have received any attention if it weren't for that community of harassment is quite important and can't simply be written off as "well of course nobody would be talking about outsider art without the context of the outsider artist."
    It's not simply that the coverage of Sonichu is dependent on coverage of Chandler, it's that the coverage of Sonichu is dependent on harassment of Chandler, and without that harassment there never would've been any coverage; the well is poisoned, so to speak. Athanelar (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with the suggestion that the main driver of interest in Davis' life was not harassment. I was there at the time (after initially finding out about him from a video by OSFirstTimer covering TempleOS), and the vast, vast majority of online interactions with him were either directly disparaging him or taking advantage of his mental illness to get a reaction out of him. I'm not denying that there were people who took a genuine interest in his work or were actually concerned about him (that Youtuber I mentioned being an example), just like there are for CWC, and I agree with his coverage on Wikipedia. But I think it's misinformed at best to deny that the bulk of his online attention was just harassment. I'm not sure about Willis, but from what I understand, the Shaggs also faced similar harassment until decades after they disbanded. Cerrathegreat (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My feelings on the matter essentially boil down to the following:
    • There is no timeline in which Sonichu would have received widespread attention without most of that initial attention being negative.
    • Sonichu would certainly have found a small but dedicated fanbase regardless of whether it received widespread attention.
    • The widespread attention Sonichu has received has helped to make the small fanbase it does have, as well as admiration toward it, more notable and frequent than it otherwise would have been.
    • This positive notability and attention, as it stands today, exists independently of the negative attention Sonichu has received, and would continue to exist even if this negative attention were to subside. The current fans of Sonichu and CWC's other work were drawn to it because of the attention it received in general, not explicitly because that attention was negative or born from harassment.
    In short, I believe that Sonichu would not have achieved fame if it did not receive this widespread attention, and I believe that this widespread attention would always have been mostly negative. But I also believe that the positive attention Sonichu has received exists independently of the fact that the widespread attention is negative, would exist to some extent even if the series never received widespread attention, and on its own is enough to make the series notable even independently of that negative attention. I believe that this scenario has appeared before through the works of multiple outsider artists, and in all of these cases, the decision has been made that a page should exist for those artists. I do not believe CWC is any different in that regard. Cerrathegreat (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, to clarify, I wasn't arguing against the (imaginary) point that CWC wouldn't want an article specifically; I was using the fact that she's recently demonstrated an informed interest in drawing attention to herself as evidence that she isn't WP:LOWPROFILE which was discussed above, and using that as an argument that creating an article about CWC would not inherently qualify as harassment since she has not recently expressed a desire to be forgotten or ignored online, and her actions have implied the opposite. If someone does not desire to avoid attention and has demonstrated awareness of what that attention may bring with it, giving them neutral attention cannot be an inherent form of harassment. The idea that it would be has been brought up a few times during this discussion. Cerrathegreat (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see providing a platform for increased awareness of a person as a neutral action towards them. The past and current behavior and actions of others towards and about the subject should be more of a defining factor on whether a biographical article is appropriate, not the attitude of the subject themselves. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Zoe Quinn has also been the victim of a harassment campaign, and the article about them has been nominated for deletion twice on similar grounds. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several reliable sources cited In the deletion nominations of that article that do not focus on the subject's harassment or allegations of criminal behavior; i do not see that being the case in all of the sources contributing to notability for Chandler. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Quinn also had a career and some degree of public presence before GamerGate. That's the whole reason GamerGate happened: because of the supposed implications of their position in the industry.
    Entirely incomparable to Chandler, where nobody disagrees that the initial reason anyone took notice of her was for the purposes of or because of the harassment, and the only argunent for her independent notability is that it has developed after the harassment began, not that it existed before. Athanelar (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For a while, I've been misreading "That's only one way to look at it" as "There's only one way to look at it", which had given me the impression that Athanelar would dismiss arguments that look at it from any other angle. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Internet culture have been notified of this discussion. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe? Some editors agree that the existing sources would be enough to where there would've been an article as far back as 2022 if not for the harassment campaign, and the point about the subject being more okay with getting attention these days has been brought up here. Of course, the article may have to be extended confirmed protected indefinitely, and arbitration remedies may have to be put in place to discourage frivolous edit requests. Some dedicated trolls may still try to mess with the article or cause mischief on the talk page, but that possibility may motivate some other users to patrol these pages so everyone else can focus on other matters.
If all of that sort of mess was to have been happening on an existing article whose subject meets the relevant notability guidelines, hardly anyone would argue for that article to be deleted just so editors will no longer have to waste their time dealing with trolling and vandalism. If that article was to be deleted for that reason alone, editors' time would instead be wasted on reviewing drafts about that article's subject and arguing with everyone who would want that article to be restored.
The difference is that, if the article exists, then these time-consuming shenanigans may be concentrated within its talk page instead of scattered across several discussion pages. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the article exists, it is most definitely going to get brought to AfD, which is going to run for however long (or get immediately closed one way or another (and then the closer will get brought to WP:Deletion review)) and potentially result in discussions at WP:BLP/N and the administrator's noticeboards... this is all speculation of course, but this discussion on its own has already come to WP:VPM and WP:Closure requests, why wouldn't it spread further after the article exists? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the post-creation drama goes on for too long or goes too far, the Arbitration Committee may put increasingly stringent remedies into effect to discourage further pointless or tiresome behavior from editors who don't want the article to exist because they think it's a troll magnet. If an AfD discussion is closed as keep (somehow) for the umpteenth time in a row, or one such AfD discussion is brought to deletion review and closed in the article's favor (somehow) for the umpteenth time in a row, a moratorium may be placed on the initiation of such discussions, and editors who persistently defy the arbitration remedies or the moratorium may be seen as not getting the point. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This all seems like it would be a burden on editor and administrative resources (time) that could be better spent elsewhere. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The drama that surrounds articles about any contentious topic (e.g. religious or political controversies such as Zionism) could also be considered burdensome to deal with, yet as an argument against the creation (or in favor of the deletion) of an article, it may not work in isolation, because it just appeals to contributors' fears. By comparison, an argument invoking WP:AVOIDVICTIM is stronger because it is policy-based. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the lack of new comments over the past few days, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) has been notified of this discussion. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, a BLP-compliant, neutral article that uses the available sources - particularly those that are considered "contributing to notability" on this source assessment table - would not be an article that establishes notability for Chandler. Such an article would not be useful to a reader and carry a huge burden on editor and administrator time to maintain in a way that avoids victimization; it's a burden even by not existing. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How would using sources that contribute to notability not establish notability? That the subject meets WP:GNG is clear. Skyshiftertalk 20:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that it would be difficult to produce and maintain an article that clearly demonstrates notability while following WP:BLP by using said sources. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on whether Chandler is now high-profile or is still considered low-profile:
  • If Chandler can now be considered a public figure: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." "[The article] should state only that the [subject] was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred."
  • If Chandler is still not a public figure: "[E]xercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care". Also, "editors must seriously consider not including material in any article that suggests the person has committed, is suspected of, is a person of interest in, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime."
– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Source_assessment/CWC&oldid=1357428906"