IShowSpeed ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This Wikipedia page has been speedily deleted and salted by criteria G4 even though there was significant new information and sources justifying the creation of the page. Célestin Denis ( talk)

• I do think G4 was improperly applied here, as the speedily-deleted version differed significantly from the version draftified via AfD. That said, the cut-and-paste move that created the article this time shouldn't have been possible. I don't know what happened to the indefinite create protection applied in April, but it didn't stop what it should have stopped. The clear consensus of the AfD was to salt against such and article creation, and I think pushing the current version through AfC is the best outcome here. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation via AfC - @ Célestin Denis: Actually, I was hoping for a more solid argument/explanation on his notability from you, besides just the G4 deletion. I should've clarified it better, but I kind of expected you to also show the new sources that prove his notability as well. Anyway, for all the editors here, I posted this response earlier on the draft's talk page, but for contextual purposes, I'll reiterate most of what I stated.

First off, we already know about the two previous AfDs and saltings. This isn't the point anymore. Rather, the argument proposed here was to demonstrate that this YouTuber in question now meets WP:GNG due to new sources that arose following the six months since said AfDs. In fact, quite a few of these sources existed even during the initial AfDs earlier this year.

Multiple sources prove his notability - Kotaku, Dot Esports, Insider, NME, Inven Global, and even The Washington Post - all reliable per WP:RSPSS, WP:VG/RS and WP:A/S. They each discuss significant aspects of him as a person and YouTuber - from him being one of the fastest growing streamers on YouTube; his popularity originating from clips of his streams posted online; and the multitude (key word: multitude) of incidents he's gotten himself into. WP:BLP1E does not come close to applying for him here, and it would be erroneous to state otherwise.

Second off, I initially had moments of doubt about his notability that I addressed in my response on the talk page, mainly fears that it would descend into a whole bunch of disputes over what Wikipedia is not. After reading Denis' response and the improvements he made to the draft however, I came to realize that those fears were in retrospect a bit unsubstantiated. Perhaps the article won't descend into a battleground over content, and if it does we could always request page protections to circumvent poor edits. Not to mention, Wikipedia houses plenty of articles of problematic individuals all the time that also meet GNG. It shouldn't necessarily be a detriment that decreases the notability of a person, and even though a lot of sources do discuss him within incidents, there are quite a few that discuss him holistically.

Factoring in Denis' good faith edits, I proposed to him to make this deletion review so that editors can come to a consensus to unsalt and allow recreation via AfD - which is my vote now. These sources prove he's notable. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 23:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comments:
  • • The reason why this got into article space is that the title had been ECP-protected rather than admin-protected, and the editor who copy-pasted it into article space is Extended Confirmed.
    • I don't remember the details of the deleted version of the article and so can't comment on whether the G4 was valid.
    • If the G4 is concluded to have been mistaken, then a strict interpretation of the procedures is that we should restore the speedily deleted article, and it can be taken to a third AFD.
    • The alternative to restoring the speedily deleted article would be to leave the deletion standing by Ignore All Rules.
    • This is a case where the proponents of a subject are working against their own cause by trying to get an article into article space by bludgeoning or by gaming the system. This sort of full court press is too common with Internet personalities and up-and-coming actors, and it makes it less likely that their person will get into Wikipedia, not more likely. The ultras who try to force an article into article space apparently think that they are smarter than the community, but sometimes the community has crowd wisdom.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Robert, I'm fairly sure your first comment is incorrect. If the ECP create-protection had still been enabled, Gameforall should not have been able to create it. They have less than 200 edits. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 04:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

There was another creation between the ECP salting and Gameforall's; it's the version that was moved to Draft:IShowSpeed (and that's still there). The mainspace title was no longer protected after the move. — Cryptic 04:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I can't see as much as you can, but am I right in thinking that WaddlesJP13's move from mainspace to draftspace is what led to the loss of protection? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 04:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

It was actually the move from draft to main; as soon as a title's no longer red, its creation protection is gone. Admin privileges aren't needed to see what happened - it's visible in IShowSpeed's logs and Draft:IShowSpeed's history. — Cryptic 05:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks again. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 05:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

That might be my fault, I moved the draft to main-space after greatly revising the draft with sources that are listed as reliable. I also made sure to correct the neutrality within the article. Although a bold move, I proceeded with it because:

A. I thought that the topic's notability would easily be defendable in a potential deletion discussion given IShowSpeed's coverage in reliable sources.

B. I thought that the article would be more likely to be improved if it was in the main space. Editors could be discouraged from editing a page that has been deleted and declined by AfC numerous times. I also thought that the new page reviewers could easily spot inappropriate elements in the article before the page's indexation.

C. I thought that the upcoming AfC review could be biased considering the article's deletion and AfC declining history along with the controversial nature of the subject. This theory turned out to be correct considering the result of the most recent review despite the article's improvement. Célestin Denis ( talk) 13:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation via AFC For the record this was gonna get deleted anyway, it was copy/pasted into the article space, however I locked it to prevent that from reoccurring and to preserve the neutrality of the community for when the article clears its AFC period. If we spend the next so many weeks/months CSD-ing this article no one will be willing to give it a chance when it clears AFC. This was a calculated move with a calculated risk designed to stop the fanbase and allow for work towards acceptance in the AFC space, done to preserve the spirit of AGF in allowing recreation via AFC and to preserve NPOV among the community towards whatever new version may be accepted for publication. TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the AfD. It was properly deleted. The draft, draft:IShowSpeed, was rejected, by User:Bonadea I disagree with that rejection, as must those above who !vote “allow recreation via AfC” or similar. Revert that REJECT, the topic is plausibly notable. However, the draft is WP:Reference bombed, and this makes it difficult to review. Urge the proponents to follow the advice at WP:THREE. See WP:SIRS. Set up a table on the draft_talk page. This will reasonably allow a reviewer to fairly review. Until this is done, and approved by an AfC reviewer, create-protect the mainspace title. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  The draft was rejected after the article was copy and pasted into main-space and nominated for deletion by G4. If anything the draft was declined because of the decision from the admins regarding the article. Célestin Denis ( talk) 15:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  If the subject is plausibly notable why can't the article be moved into main-space where it can be improved? AfC reviewers have repeatedly shown their bias towards the subject which might result in IShowSpeed staying in the draft space forever. Not to mention that the draft version that was declined was the one by the same contributor who went rogue, deleting reliable sources and replacing them with unreliable ones before copy and pasting the draft in the main-space. The current version of the draft, the one made by me and more experienced contributors, doesn't contain the elements for which the draft was declined. I think it's unfair that the perfectly acceptable version of the draft, which was in review for a week prior to Gameforall's reckless actions, was only reviewed mere minutes after the user's disruptive actions. Prior to his actions, other AfC reviewers came forward and said that they were hesitant to let IShowSpeed have an article due to his controversial nature. I'm getting the sense that one of them was waiting for disruption to happen in order to have a reason to decline the draft. No AfC reviewer will want to accept the article due to its history and controversial nature and to be honest, I don't blame them. Reviewers will either chose to move on to another draft or find a bogus reason to decline. Célestin Denis ( talk) 15:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  Maybe assume a bit of good faith here? Obviously I looked at the history before reviewing and rejecting the draft, it's pretty offensive to suggest anything else. The mere minutes you mention were in fact four hours. Gameforall's version was even spammier than the one preceding it, but since the version prior to Gameforall's contained promofluff like "a rate unprecedented in YouTube history" as well as quite a lot of trivial detail as well as quotes from the youtuber's own vile rants, the draft was both spammy and derogatory. In addition, at least one third of the sources in the pre-Gameforall version were inappropriate. I stand behind my rejection of the draft, given its long and spammy history, but my opinion on that score is worth no more than anybody else's. It looks like there is a pretty strong consensus forming for allowing recreation in draftspace and resubmission. -- bonadea contributions talk 20:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  User:Bonadea, I guess you were limited by the template. When you say “Reject the draft”, fair enough, but that’s not what the applied template says, it says “The TOPIC …” [is rejected].

  Maybe we can agree to say that the current draft should be WP:TNT-ed, and any new attempts should not WP:Reference bomb, but should follow WP:THREE and WP:SIRS.

  I see the topic as “plausibly notable”, which is a very low standard, notability is neither demonstrated nor impossible. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the draft certainly needs work when in the opening it gushes "... at a rate unprecedented in YouTube history" with a reference which says no such thing. I tend to lose interest at that point in wanting to try and work out if the rest of the article is just more hyperbole or actually backed by the references -- 81.100.164.154 ( talk) 18:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment It's hard to review the last deletion of this article without looking at its entire history. An article on this subject has been deleted 4 times in main space over the past six months and the latest draft version, which I assume is similar to the latest main space version, was rejected, not declined but rejected, by AFC reviewers yesterday. I assume that the draft includes the new sources you refer to. I disagree about your stance on AFC reviewers being unwilling to ever let an article on this subject get approval but they can't totally ignore its rocky history on the project. There is no point to "Allow recreation via AFC" when a draft version similar to the deleted main version already exists and it has been rejected meaning that it can not be resubmitted for review. I think it would be difficult to justify restoring this article in main space if it has been rejected by AFC reviewers in Draft space. And, even if it was restored, I predict it would get its 3rd trip to AFD in 2022. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

After further review, I now see that Bonadea and Robert McClenon reviewed Gameforall's version of the draft, not yours, Célestin Denis. I don't think the CSD G4 deletion should be overturned but I agree with SmokeyJoe, I do think it would be ideal to get the draft version's rejection by AFC reviewers to be reconsidered if you have introduced as many changes and improvements as you argue you have. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment - @ SmokeyJoe, Bonadea, Robert McClenon, and TomStar81: please see the table I made on the talk page. That is the last comment I'm making for anything IShowSpeed-related; I'm done explaining myself. At this point, I genuinely don't know how any editor can objectively evaluate these sources and still reasonably come to the conclusion that he isn't sufficiently notable enough for Wikipedia, outside of concerns regarding potential NPOV issues and disputes over his controversies. But regardless, I'll still assume good faith and accept whatever decision you make about the sources. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 05:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  I call these sources as scraping the GNG minimum, and as they are new, they overcome G4. They are not impressively new, so I recommend not considering submission or mainspacing the page before six months after the last consensus to delete. That will be in about a week. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Reverse Rejection - I think that the rejection by Bonadea was correct, but, having reviewed the source analysis table on the draft talk page, the current draft appears to satisfyestablish general notability and should at least be reviewed de novo. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  User:Robert_McClenon, you misrepresent the WP:GNG. The satisfying of the GNG is not a question for a particular version of a page. The WP:GNG applies to the topic, and sources that exist. The GNG does not depend on the state of the page, or the current set of references. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  No, but the state of the page is what establishes that the sources exist so that the subject is notable. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment - There should be a lesson here for fan clubs of Internet celebrities and up-and-coming artists and entertainers. Trying to bludgeon the review process or game the system to get an article work less well than reasoning with the reviewers. Multiple trouts are in order both on this appeal and on the Lana Rhoades appeal, as cases where the proponents were their own worst enemy by creating a history of declines, rejection, deletion, and reviews. I know that they should learn, and I have seen that proponents don't learn. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Tittytainment ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This is strictly not a deletion review, as I do not want to contest the original decision of deletion. However as it is a plausible search term, I propose one of them on this title:

• Redirect it to The Global Trap
• Soft redirect to Wiktionary
• Allow recreation, since more sources may exist now, such as this one (in Chinese), but one of the above may also be done until the article is rewritten

I am not sure which is more proper. GZWDer ( talk) 13:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

None of those require DRV approval. Feel free to proceed with whichever you think best. Jclemens ( talk) 18:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Downgrade create protection to ECP to allow the appellant to do one of the three they want to do. I note in the future this probably could of gone to WP:RPP/D, the protection was added 12 years ago and its very plausible circumstances have changed. Jumpytoo Talk 20:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Downgrade protection to ECP as per Jumpytoo. User:Jclemens - The appellant is at DRV because it is admin-create-protect locked. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  Got it. That was not obvious from the appeal; sorry to not have checked. I agree with the protection downgrade, and wonder if it might not be a good idea to go through all pre-ECP create-protected titles and see which ones would be better served by that protection level... Jclemens ( talk) 03:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  Comment - Agree that downgrading many old admin-protected titles can be downgraded. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  Where the problem is page protection, the editor should be told (including at DRVPURPOSE) to first ask the protecting admin User:KrakatoaKatie, and if no joy second by going to WP:RFPP. DRV should be reserved as a forum for challenging the admin’s decision to not de-protect on a reasonable request. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Allison Kopf ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

A raw reading of the results sees four delete entries, two keeps and usefy, yet the article was closed with a non-consensus. Considering the low quality of the articles references its seems to be a very poorlu exeuted decision. It should have been a delete. scope_creep ^Talk 13:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as no consensus is the correct call here, though I would not completely oppose relisting to get more input. While there were varying opinions on whether the provided sources were sufficient for WP:GNG, the one thing that was clear is that there was NOT consensus to delete. The second "delete" vote should be dismissed as it misrepresents the rule of WP:THREE as superseding GNG. All three keep votes (not two, as the nom claims, I will assume this was an honest mistake) show there is enough in-depth coverage. The Grist article provided by User:Silver seren was shown to have in-depth coverage of both Kopf and her business. So that's three solid keep votes compared to four solid delete/ATD votes. As close to no consensus as you can get. Frank Anchor 15:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure by Legoktm as no consensus, as a closer needs to consider more than just the "raw reading." Silver seren provided a strong argument with source links and quoted text. I certainly don't think it is enough to be a clear "keep" but at the same time a "deletion" would be an inappropriate conclusion as well. Therefore, "no consensus" is a fair reading of the situation.

Fuzheado | Talk 15:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Was a third keep added after the close, or did the appellant not see one of them? Jclemens ( talk) 15:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  Nothing was added after the close. Legoktm ( talk) 23:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as the best reading of the situation. Relist would have been valid, but was not required, and would probably have resulted in No Consensus in another week. When an AFD has long comments because an editor supplies multiple sources (or posts a wall of text), it is easy to misread the number of !votes. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Closer comment I don't have anything to add to what Frank Anchor and Fuzheado explained (thank you). I have no objection to relisting, but chose not to go down that route since like Robert McClenon, I expected it to only prolong the no consensus result by a week. Legoktm ( talk) 23:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Good close. Advise User:Scope_creep to read WP:RENOM. The AfD nomination fails to asserted that no GNG sources exist. It’s not enough to criticise the current reference list. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (involved, voted delete). Reasonable disagreement over the independence of sources can preclude consensus, as happened here. Ovinus ( talk) 05:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply