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.
This article was never approved by anyone, and I don't think this article would meet any criteria. The focus of this article is heavily on the plastic surgery operations that they underwent to resemble Jimin of BTS. Though they released music they still do not meet
WP:MUSIC. There's nothing significant about the subject. Their following count across social media accounts is huge but if that were to carry any weight then with that anyone with a decent following on social media could have their own article, but that is clearly not realistic. What really is notable about them other than the strange desire to look like another person? Though this has been discussed before it really needs to be reconsidered.
Btspurplegalaxy🗩🖉07:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't understand your point "never approved by anyone" editors can create articles without anyone's approval. Anyway, there are reliable secondary sources about them and a quick google news search brought up loads of articles about (and I'm sorry to write this) their planned penis reduction surgery. They do meet the general notability criteria. It has taken a lot of effort to not add a joke here, I probably deserve a barnstar for that.
CT55555 (
talk)
08:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment User:Btspurplegalaxy You've edited the reason for AfD, so now I'll reply to the new parts: the strangeness of their actions don't detract from their notability. Your username being the same as the name of band that this person is trying to look like does suggest you might care about why they are notable, but I'd urge you to consider not a judgement about why they are notable, just if they are notable. Also, please note their preferred pronouns. It is "they" not "him"
WP:GNLPOLICYCT55555 (
talk)
20:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I've corrected them but I started this discussion again as it doesn't seem the last one resulted in just their notability being fully assessed. I do hope other editors look more at the notability of it rather than solely the subject having reliable sources.
Btspurplegalaxy🗩🖉20:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - It was "approved" per se
here after a discussion by the community. If it needs to be rehashed, then the subject has plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources. Ones that have happened since the most recent AfD in December include
this and
this. I hate Kardashian fame type Wikipedia pages, but it meets
WP:GNG and
WP:ANYBIO. You also may want to ping the editors involved in the discussion a few months ago. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
20:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete All I can find are pages of unreliable sources, from Newsweek to TMZ, The Daily Mail, The Sun etc. If someone can find better sources, ok then, but I don't see any.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Here we go again, but I was pinged above, and feel the same way I did when I went with "Delete" last time. Just because someone terms themself an "influencer", or some publication looks to hook a reader or two says "influencer" doesn't mean they have actually influenced anyone. There's an referenced Disography - did they chart at all? Big whoop here, somebody has plastic surgery, and announces they're transracial, doesn't mean they did anything notable. And these days, a lot of TV shows based their guest lists on whatever shocking thing will make an audience tune in - accomplishments not a requirement. At least
Caitlyn Jenner had some sizeable accomplishments prior to their decision to change genders. And
Chaz Bono was already famous decades prior to the change, and is using their experience to help others. What did this guy do? Nothing. Even piano playing cats can get on YouTube - no big deal.
— Maile (
talk)
04:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Please keep in mind that notability isn't defined by how interesting you personally find a particular subject (though I do sympathize with your boredom—there's a long list of topics I could care less about, but which nonetheless meet notability guidelines). Notability in this context is primarily defined by how independent secondary sources treat the subject of the article, and it seems pretty clear that as boring as you personally find this, enough reliable sources cover this in enough detail that this should be an unambiguous Keep.
Yitz (
talk)
04:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Please do not assume. Boredom is not the issue here. Early life and Career sections, with only one exception, are flagged for sourcing issues. Discography has no sourcing, no links, no information at all on the alleged singles. Aside from those, all you have is the section on their identity. And ... so what? My comments higher up on Jenner and Bono, were meant to convey that the reason their gender reassignments were known, is because they had been celebrities for decades before each had the process. Otherwise, they'd just be two trans people we would have never heard of.
— Maile (
talk)
16:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Nothing has changed since the last AfD. They have sigcov in The Daily Dot, Business Insider, and Sky News. It does not matter what "accomplishments" they may or may not have, all that matters is that they satisfy
WP:BASIC. Which this individual does, so that should be the end of the discussion.
Mlb96 (
talk)
04:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I just googled them and there have been two articles in Newsweek where they are the focus. Has this person ever accomplished anything but drama? Maybe not. But have they got significant coverage because of causing drama? It seems so. --
Bob drobbs (
talk)
04:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't think Wikipedia should deserve to have an article of someone who is only famous for changing their race by having multiple plastic surgeries and engaging in obsessive/toxic fan behaviour. No notable achievements and having music career which was literally unknown and later poorly received among general populace. This is an online encyclopaedia, not a celebrity gossip site.
Toadboy123 (
talk)
06:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Like I said last time, this article is full of material that is either unsourced or improperly sourced. Last time I suggested that if anyone thought it should be kept they they could dratify if until it was ready for mainspace but since last time no one seems to make any good edits to the article and almost all the sources are tagged as unreliable. If we removed all of that content that isn't properly sourced, then the article would just be a stub. If editors feel that this is an article worth keeping then they should've worked on fixing it to make it a proper article with reliable sources but since no one seems to be interested in it then that shows that this person isn't really notable enough to have an article and it should just get deleted.
FanDePopLatino (
talk)
06:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
since no one seems to be interested in it then that shows that this person isn't really notable enough to have an article That is not how our notability policy works.
Mlb96 (
talk)
17:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep as CNMall41 points out above, there is ample reliable sourcing available. There is no need for the subject to meet
WP:NMUSIC, they just need to meet
WP:NBIO. Notability isn't about what the person did, it's about the coverage they receive.
NemesisAT (
talk)
10:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is classic
WP:BLP1E and needs further analysis as to whether they have continuing impact and whether they will continue getting coverage.
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Although deletion is not cleanup
WP:DINC, the preponderance of unreliable sources makes it difficult to assess this. Because the article is a BLP, all the unreliable sources and their related statements should be removed immediately:
Great analysis and spot on. I am with the
WP:IDL crowd as I don't feel this person deserves to be in Wikipedia for blowing all their money for something like this. However, IDL is an argument to avoid and they have received continued significant coverage over the last three years so
WP:LASTING should be met in my opinion. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
17:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Invited by
Btspurplegalaxy with a neutral post on my talk page. I am with
AngusWOOF on this. As much as IDL on the subject, but I don't see the need to delete the article. If kept, the statements backed by unreliable sources should be removed for it is a BLP (
WP:KO/RS should be applicable for this subject since the primary notability angle is a Korean one (K-pop)). However, if it is a decision to be deleted, I rather that the article be redirected and merged into
Jimin (singer, born 1995), summarising only the statements that are backed by reliable sources.
– robertsky (
talk)
05:54, 10 March 2022 (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.
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.
This article was never approved by anyone, and I don't think this article would meet any criteria. The focus of this article is heavily on the plastic surgery operations that they underwent to resemble Jimin of BTS. Though they released music they still do not meet
WP:MUSIC. There's nothing significant about the subject. Their following count across social media accounts is huge but if that were to carry any weight then with that anyone with a decent following on social media could have their own article, but that is clearly not realistic. What really is notable about them other than the strange desire to look like another person? Though this has been discussed before it really needs to be reconsidered.
Btspurplegalaxy🗩🖉07:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't understand your point "never approved by anyone" editors can create articles without anyone's approval. Anyway, there are reliable secondary sources about them and a quick google news search brought up loads of articles about (and I'm sorry to write this) their planned penis reduction surgery. They do meet the general notability criteria. It has taken a lot of effort to not add a joke here, I probably deserve a barnstar for that.
CT55555 (
talk)
08:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment User:Btspurplegalaxy You've edited the reason for AfD, so now I'll reply to the new parts: the strangeness of their actions don't detract from their notability. Your username being the same as the name of band that this person is trying to look like does suggest you might care about why they are notable, but I'd urge you to consider not a judgement about why they are notable, just if they are notable. Also, please note their preferred pronouns. It is "they" not "him"
WP:GNLPOLICYCT55555 (
talk)
20:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I've corrected them but I started this discussion again as it doesn't seem the last one resulted in just their notability being fully assessed. I do hope other editors look more at the notability of it rather than solely the subject having reliable sources.
Btspurplegalaxy🗩🖉20:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - It was "approved" per se
here after a discussion by the community. If it needs to be rehashed, then the subject has plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources. Ones that have happened since the most recent AfD in December include
this and
this. I hate Kardashian fame type Wikipedia pages, but it meets
WP:GNG and
WP:ANYBIO. You also may want to ping the editors involved in the discussion a few months ago. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
20:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete All I can find are pages of unreliable sources, from Newsweek to TMZ, The Daily Mail, The Sun etc. If someone can find better sources, ok then, but I don't see any.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Here we go again, but I was pinged above, and feel the same way I did when I went with "Delete" last time. Just because someone terms themself an "influencer", or some publication looks to hook a reader or two says "influencer" doesn't mean they have actually influenced anyone. There's an referenced Disography - did they chart at all? Big whoop here, somebody has plastic surgery, and announces they're transracial, doesn't mean they did anything notable. And these days, a lot of TV shows based their guest lists on whatever shocking thing will make an audience tune in - accomplishments not a requirement. At least
Caitlyn Jenner had some sizeable accomplishments prior to their decision to change genders. And
Chaz Bono was already famous decades prior to the change, and is using their experience to help others. What did this guy do? Nothing. Even piano playing cats can get on YouTube - no big deal.
— Maile (
talk)
04:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Please keep in mind that notability isn't defined by how interesting you personally find a particular subject (though I do sympathize with your boredom—there's a long list of topics I could care less about, but which nonetheless meet notability guidelines). Notability in this context is primarily defined by how independent secondary sources treat the subject of the article, and it seems pretty clear that as boring as you personally find this, enough reliable sources cover this in enough detail that this should be an unambiguous Keep.
Yitz (
talk)
04:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Please do not assume. Boredom is not the issue here. Early life and Career sections, with only one exception, are flagged for sourcing issues. Discography has no sourcing, no links, no information at all on the alleged singles. Aside from those, all you have is the section on their identity. And ... so what? My comments higher up on Jenner and Bono, were meant to convey that the reason their gender reassignments were known, is because they had been celebrities for decades before each had the process. Otherwise, they'd just be two trans people we would have never heard of.
— Maile (
talk)
16:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Nothing has changed since the last AfD. They have sigcov in The Daily Dot, Business Insider, and Sky News. It does not matter what "accomplishments" they may or may not have, all that matters is that they satisfy
WP:BASIC. Which this individual does, so that should be the end of the discussion.
Mlb96 (
talk)
04:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I just googled them and there have been two articles in Newsweek where they are the focus. Has this person ever accomplished anything but drama? Maybe not. But have they got significant coverage because of causing drama? It seems so. --
Bob drobbs (
talk)
04:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't think Wikipedia should deserve to have an article of someone who is only famous for changing their race by having multiple plastic surgeries and engaging in obsessive/toxic fan behaviour. No notable achievements and having music career which was literally unknown and later poorly received among general populace. This is an online encyclopaedia, not a celebrity gossip site.
Toadboy123 (
talk)
06:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Like I said last time, this article is full of material that is either unsourced or improperly sourced. Last time I suggested that if anyone thought it should be kept they they could dratify if until it was ready for mainspace but since last time no one seems to make any good edits to the article and almost all the sources are tagged as unreliable. If we removed all of that content that isn't properly sourced, then the article would just be a stub. If editors feel that this is an article worth keeping then they should've worked on fixing it to make it a proper article with reliable sources but since no one seems to be interested in it then that shows that this person isn't really notable enough to have an article and it should just get deleted.
FanDePopLatino (
talk)
06:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
since no one seems to be interested in it then that shows that this person isn't really notable enough to have an article That is not how our notability policy works.
Mlb96 (
talk)
17:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep as CNMall41 points out above, there is ample reliable sourcing available. There is no need for the subject to meet
WP:NMUSIC, they just need to meet
WP:NBIO. Notability isn't about what the person did, it's about the coverage they receive.
NemesisAT (
talk)
10:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is classic
WP:BLP1E and needs further analysis as to whether they have continuing impact and whether they will continue getting coverage.
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Although deletion is not cleanup
WP:DINC, the preponderance of unreliable sources makes it difficult to assess this. Because the article is a BLP, all the unreliable sources and their related statements should be removed immediately:
Great analysis and spot on. I am with the
WP:IDL crowd as I don't feel this person deserves to be in Wikipedia for blowing all their money for something like this. However, IDL is an argument to avoid and they have received continued significant coverage over the last three years so
WP:LASTING should be met in my opinion. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
17:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Invited by
Btspurplegalaxy with a neutral post on my talk page. I am with
AngusWOOF on this. As much as IDL on the subject, but I don't see the need to delete the article. If kept, the statements backed by unreliable sources should be removed for it is a BLP (
WP:KO/RS should be applicable for this subject since the primary notability angle is a Korean one (K-pop)). However, if it is a decision to be deleted, I rather that the article be redirected and merged into
Jimin (singer, born 1995), summarising only the statements that are backed by reliable sources.
– robertsky (
talk)
05:54, 10 March 2022 (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.