Talk:Alayne Fleischmann

Is this individual important enough to have a Wiki page

I got pulled (that is tagged into a discussion) on Twitter about various people being accused of sexual assault or harassment. Someone else jumped into the discussion too, but wasn’t invited. She seems to jump into discussions whenever this one guy is mentioned. She got called out for it. I’m speaking of Alayne Fleischmann. Someone mentioned she had a Wiki Page & were surprised because they knew of other ppl who had a page taken down, having been given the reason they weren’t notable enough (they weren’t happy, but I haven’t a clue how they got a page & how that decision was arrived at.) But I didn’t know who this individual was (Fleischmann) so I came to look. I’m not sure this person is notable enough either. Her Twitter account hasn’t been given the check mark & her Twitter behavior is that of a typical troll. I suspect she’s even using software that alerts her when a certain friend is mentioned (he’s been accused of sexual harassment.)

Anyway, of course how she behaves on Twitter doesn’t directly relate to her page here. (After all, plenty of legit famous folks behave badly on Twitter.) But I would say that given that most of her activity is unrelated to the one thing she is listed for here as being noteworthy, and the somewhat flattering view of this page in certain areas, making me wonder who actually created it, is this a page that should exist? I am politically active, and given the company she was a whistleblower for, her name doesn’t even ring a bell with me.

I’m still learning the ropes here, so I may be wrong. But the one individual who lost a page here has actually done more than Fleischmann (I don’t see the need to call this person out by name, because she also can be nasty on Twitter & use the report TOS violations to get ppl suspended when they anger her) SiobhanElizabeth (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

PROD removal

PROD concern stated as "Lack of notability for a living person. The subject of the article was involved in a JP Morgan case from 2011, which was mostly limited to coverage by one Rolling Stone article, with other low quality sources derived from this reference. The limited media coverage and singular nature does not appear to meet the standards for notability."
I have added sources from 2016, 2017 and 2018. The subject may be notable as the whistleblower in one case, but it was a very significant case, as the article makes clear, and it is referred to as such in books published some years later. (At the time, it was not just "limited to coverage by one Rolling Stone article" - there was also a televised interview.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)