Talk:Debbie Hayton

Notability and References

I've been following this page. I think that it is notable, and there are sufficient references. I've just added another about a debate at Church of England General Synod. Hayton seems to cause controversy in publishing, at the TUC, and in the church. Dskjt (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I now suggest removing the tag about notability and insufficient references. If anyone disagrees, could you add a comment in the next seven days. Dskjt (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Original author banned and possible deletion

Please note that I have taken a speedy deletion tag off this article. The proposed reason was WP:G5 which I don't think applies as other editors have done significant work on this. If there is another argument for deletion then probably that can best be advanced by using the WP:AfD process. I have also done the same to Transgender Trend for the same reasons.

Assuming the article is to be kept, I would advise people to be somewhat cautious of its contents given that its original creator is blocked and has had multiple sockpuppets blocked. That said, nothing in the way the article is written strikes me as obviously egregious on a quick reading. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: That's fair enough. I would just like to mention that Dskjt (who has edited this article, and has kindly uploaded an image of Hayton as their own work on Wikimedia Commons) is most likely personally linked to the subject of this article, and may be Debbie herself. The user has disclosed on their Commons profile that they are a physics teacher based in Birmingham, just like the subject of this article. This is also disclosed on their Wikipedia account.

That being said, I agree there is nothing egregiously wrong with this article as it is currently written. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Removal of content

Just wanted to expand upon the justification for the removal of content I've done this evening.

• Removal of journalist in lead - This was unsupported in the body. The articles accessible through the list of publications in which Hayton has written in are all opinion pieces. There was no secondary coverage calling Hayton a journalist, and I'm unable to find any.
• Removal of paragraph on publications - Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. All citations within the first sentence of the paragraph were either to Hayton's profile on those websites, or a single opinion piece she has written in them. Culturico seems to be a non-notable opinion/blog site with little to no secondary coverage. Appearances on BBC, Sky News, and GB News as a talking head seem undue and don't demonstrate notability. The interview from National Review is used elsewhere in the article as a citation, from which it is self evident that it was an interview.
• Removal of sentence on controversial BBC article - Hayton was one of several people whose commentary was used in that article, there is nothing in it that demonstrates Hayton's commentary being any more notable than any of the other comments.
• Trim of external links - I removed the links to IMDB, Hayton's profile at The Spectator, and Hayton's profile at UnHerd. In addition to the guidelines mentioned in the edit history I removed IMDB because Hayton isn't notable as an actor/producer/director, and I removed the Spectator and UnHerd links per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
• Removal of TES "feature" piece - After a request at WP:REREQ, the full text of this article appears on Hayton's website. The opinion piece makes a contentious claim about school guidance, and Hayton is not demonstrated to be a subject matter expert on this topic. Additionally neither of the subsequent citations; to Transgender Trend's website, and the 2021 EHRC technical schools guidance mention Hayton. Nor does the EHRC guidance mention Transgender Trend's pack. I think the second and third citation may have been a poor attempt at WP:SYNTH to support the rest of the text. The remaining citations cover criticism of Transgender Trend's guidance, so fails WP:COATRACK and are meaningless in absence of the rest of the text.

Even if these are reverted later, which I would challenge per WP:BLPRESTORE, I have significant concerns over notability. Hayton seems to fail WP:SIGCOV as there are few reliable secondary sources about her, and those that do exist demonstrate controversy more than notability. She also seems to fail WP:NPEOPLE, as no biographies of her exist (WP:ANYBIO), and she does not appear to meet any of the four criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Were it not for the criticism of her actions and words, I would suspect she failed WP:BIO1E, however I am concerned that the only secondary coverage of Hayton is critical as this puts this very close to an WP:ATTACK bio. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I also have a concern over the notability of the paragraph on the Church of England General Synod. The first citation is a 447 page transcript of the 2021 Synod, where Hayton is mentioned twice on pages 107 and 108. It's a primary source, and doesn't inherently demonstrate controversy. The subsequent two citations go a slight degree to establishing notability of the two questions on pages 107 and 108, however they are primarily transcripts of the transcript and don't fully contextualise the issues surrounding Hayton's materials at the 2021 General Synod. Unlike the other removals which seemed more clearcut with respect to policy and guidelines, I'm not fully convinced this paragraph is entirely undue and would like a second opinion on it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Reverted to the edit by WikiCleanerBot, and reincoroprating some technical changes by Sideswipe9th.

I have restored the designation journalist. Hayton is notable for her journalism across a wide range of media. Her work covers newsgathering, interviews and investigations as well as opinon pieces. For example: https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/why-collective-action-key https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/does-the-snp-really-want-to-copy-norway-s-gender-revolution- https://unherd.com/2022/01/stop-pretending-the-uk-is-transphobic/ Dskjt (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I have undone this per WP:BLPRESTORE. When comparing the revisions of WikiCleanerBot and Dskjt, none of the issues raised above have been addressed. What has changed is the addition of Morning Star to the paragraph on publications, the addition of a name tag to a PinkNews reference and subsequent sentence on the resignation of a TES columnist, and the replacement of {{official website}} with a plain URL.

With regards to the three links provided, all appear to be opinion pieces. They are also all written by Hayton and do not demonstrate notability as a journalist. What is required for that is secondary description of Hayton as a journalist from a reliable source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a clear difference of opinion between myself and Sideswipe9th. I have reverted to the edit before either of us made the recent changes and suggest the views of senior editors are considered before proceeding. Dskjt (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Please self-revert this, as per WP:BLPRESTORE and the BLP policy, this restoration is against policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's see what others think before proceeding. Both my recent edit and your edit are secure, while the previous version is up. Several editors have worked on this page and may well have an opinion before fundamental changes are made to the page. Dskjt (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Because of the issues regarding the WP:BLP policy and the contravention of WP:BLPRESTORE, I have now opened a thread about this at the BLP noticeboard. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for opening that thread. We seem to be in disagreement over the application of policies, so I think it's helpful to seek wider opinion. Dskjt (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Could you tell me please then how you interpret WP:BLPRESTORE? Because what you've implied seems contrary to the plain meaning of the words of the policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the finer points of the policy but I've had a quick look at that removed content. It seems somewhat overblown but not entirely invalid. I would not object to some of it being cautiously brought back but not in a way that makes her sound like a regular journalist rather than an occasional contributor. If we are going to say which publications she has written for then we should keep the whole list insofar as the publications are notable. Recently RT was removed from the list and I reinstated it. If we are going to list the notably prestigious publications then we should also list the notably infamous ones so as not to give a false impression. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The primary reason why I made it as a series of discrete removals was to make it easier to judge each removal on its own merits. If there's specific bits that you'd like to see restored feel free to propose it and I'll happily reconsider. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

My views: The list of publications based on primary coverage is just synthesis and falls under WP:NOTCV. It is also inappropriate to call her a journalist. The BBC article paragraph can be neutrally rewritten to establish her views. The TES controversy can be shortened to what Pinknews writes about it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion?

Propose that this page is deleted. I am concerned that this subject is not notable. TGrl2468 (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I have the same concerns, but I don't want to be that editor who removes a bunch of content and then slaps an WP:AFD template on the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Putting aside what we might think about her, there is enough coverage that this is not a suitable case for a simple PROD tag. You could go down the route of starting an AfD discussion but I don't think it would have much chance of success. There is at least some notability here and I think it probably passes the threshold for inclusion. I'm not saying that I'm particularly happy about that but that's where we are. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I restored the CoE stuff because it didn't seem right to remove content and then propose deletion. I don't have any strong view on its appropriateness beyond saying that is seems somewhat excessive in its detail. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)