Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2022 November 14
2022 November 16 >

15 November 2022

  • Deji (YouTuber) – Deletion endorsed. There is no clear consensus whether WP:G4 or WP:G5 currently applies, but it has been discovered that the article has already been deleted twice at AfD and apparently some 20+ times by other means under a multitude of titles. As a result, the community is frustrated with the many disruptive attempts to evade scrutiny and to game an article about this topic into Wikipedia, and decides to keep the article deleted. People point out that User:JzG/And the band played on... applies here. Sandstein 09:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Deji (YouTuber) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

While this page was speedily deleted under G5, I strongly feel that was not the appropriate decision in that case, given that it wouldn't have been deleted if not for the G5. On the talk page, there was a move discussion in progress initiated by me, the subject meets the notability requirements now as opposed to when prior AFDs had occurred towards the subject years ago, and this occurred in the aftermath of the Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Deji fight on Sunday. The article was very well sourced, although I should note that I have found out that an identical draft exists at Draft: Deji Olatunji, which provided a foundation to the article as it appeared immediately before deletion. Either the deletion should be overruled and the move discussion should be closed as successful, or the draft should be speedily converted to an article and the article title is immediately unsalted. DrewieStewie ( talk) 21:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Allow recreation As stated above this article is notable and should be allowed to be re-created by a non-banned user. So I think a speedy conversion of the draft is the most appropriate way to get this content into mainspace. With of course the old move discussion being called successful for this new article. Paulpat99 ( talk) 22:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation No issue with this (or any G5 page) being recreated by any user in good standing. No opinion regarding a title move. Frank Anchor 03:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • If it were only appropriate to delete pages as G5s if they would have been deleted anyway then we wouldn't have G5; that it was an unattributed copy of the draft version is all the more reason to delete it; and it's never been salted. — Cryptic 04:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Aha, I see now that it's Deji Olatunji that's salted, after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji Olatunji and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oladeji Olatunji at a (different) attempt at a scrutiny-avoiding title change. Most of the substantial coverage on the draft is years old. Endorse on all counts, don't unsalt. — Cryptic 04:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
      • @ Cryptic: The page in 2022 absolutely would NOT have been deleted if it hadn't been for whom created the article, causing the G5 to begin with when it otherwise wouldn't have happened. I should hereby issue this Correction on my part that the actual article, at the time of the G5, although having a foundation with the draft, was heavily expanded upon entering the mainspace, such as having a furnished and up to date early life and YouTube career section, and as such the word "identical" has been struck through from the proposal. Recent events, such as facing Mayweather (!!!!!!) have indicated that the notability has since been established after the fact of the AFDs. We should NOT be putting now-notable subjects into permanent deletion purgatory over some poorly created and sourced articles from YEARS ago from before they were notable enough for Wikipedia. DrewieStewie ( talk) 06:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Also added AfD from 2020 at this title to header, which had not been done. I'll note that it included significant, identified sockpuppetry then. Not trying to ABF here, but this is not a pattern of behavior suggesting that mainspace-appropriateness has been established. Jclemens ( talk) 05:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
      • @ Jclemens: I have removed that from the header in good faith, as it is the G5 speedy deletion being contested, NOT that AFD from years ago. DrewieStewie ( talk) 06:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
        • That's not your call to make. You claim to be protesting a G5 deletion, but the real problem here is a history of inappropriate creation, repeated deletion, and evasion of create protection, which your action served to obfuscate. So, I amend my opinion to Endorse, salt all remaining non-create-protected-titles, require AfC, and require all contributors to AfC to attest to no COI as part of the AfC approval process. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 15:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Also a March 2022 afd and salting at Deji (Youtuber) ( AfD discussion), plus another ancient one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedy Shorts Gamer. — Cryptic 06:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
      @ Cryptic: Ahhh, gotcha. Wasn’t aware of that one. No objections to that one being listed, although it should definitely be noted that the Mayweather fight hadn’t even been anywhere near announced yet at that point. (That AFD’s title also stylized YouTube incorrectly.) DrewieStewie ( talk) 06:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Three more deleted versions at Deji olatunji, Deji Olatunji (ComedyShortsGamer), and Deji Olatunji (Comedyshortsgamer). I'll see if I can come up with a blacklist regex without too many false positives. — Cryptic 06:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • And there've also been article-length versions at Comedyshortsgamer, Comedy shorts gamer, ComedyShortsGamer (Entertainer), ComedyShortsGamer (Deji), ComedyShortsGamer (Youtuber), and ComedyShortsGamer(YouTuber). Comedy Shorts Gamer (entertainer) exists as a redirect to his brother, KSI. I can... maybe... see a case for a redirect from Deji Olatunji to there too, or to the fight article. Not from this name, though; disambiguated names make for poor redirects. (And do we normally have articles for retired boxers' exhibition matches, anyway? Shouldn't that merit maybe a one-sentence mention in Floyd Mayweather Jr., at most?) — Cryptic 07:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
      @ Cryptic: Clearly he wouldn’t have been positioned against Mayweather if he wasn’t notable enough from YouTube and his activities with his brother and other YouTubers/media personalities to be placed in such a headlining match, regardless of if it was exhibition or professional. There’s no way a non-notable owner of a McDonald’s franchise in Wyoming could ever get such a match. Deji has though. Because he has established notability. Are all the Endorse voters forgetting about GNG here?! Good Grief! I agree that not every million+ YouTuber is notable enough, but sometimes it’s taken too far with things like this, because when someone actually has demonstrated such notability, Wikipedians often appears reluctant and ignorant to actually recognize that notability. If a notable headlining boxing match with its own event article is not grounds establishing notability for creation of a BLP, then what the fuck is??? Honestly. This appears to be a case of crazed fans attempting to make an article over a period of several years being held against a subject when notability is finally established for them, guilty because of the past instead of the present. DrewieStewie ( talk) 08:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse if this is an appeal of the G5 deletion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I deleted the article, and for what it's worth here are my thoughts.
In the discussion above there seems to be some confusion between the issue of whether this deletion was justified and the issue of whether the article should now be allowed to be re-created. As far as my deletion is concerned, nobody has raised any objection to it apart from the totally bizarre "While this page was speedily deleted under G5, I strongly feel that was not the appropriate decision in that case, given that it wouldn't have been deleted if not for the G5"... ???? Well, if we can't speedily delete a page under a particular deletion criterion if it wouldn't be deleted if it weren't for that criterion, then when can we ever speedily delete a page? I don't think I need to say any more about that.
As far as the issue of allowing re-creation is concerned, the article has at least three times been deleted at deletion discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji (YouTuber), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji Olatunji, & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oladeji Olatunji, and it has been deleted at least twenty eight times under several titles, not counting deletion of redirects following page moves. I very much doubt that I have ever seen any other example of anywhere near that many attempts to get an article established in the face of such unambiguous consensus that it isn't suitable. I took no part in any of those deletion discussions, and until this deletion review came up I had no opinion whatsoever as to whether the subject is notable by Wikipedia standards, but I have now looked into it, and as far as I can see the claim that the subject of the article has now become more notable than at the times of those deletion discussions rests on the fact that he has once taken part in an "exhibition" boxing match. I have looked at the references cited for that match, both in the deleted article and in the article about the match. I don't see those references as providing convincing evidence that the match satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and they don't come anywhere remotely near to indicating that "Deji" satisfies them. JBW ( talk) 16:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Re: I very much doubt that I have ever seen any other example of anywhere near that many attempts to get an article established in the face of such unambiguous consensus that it isn't suitable. may I introduce you to the Battle for Dream Island and its edit filters and salt collection? It has good company Star Mississippi 18:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse G5 but it also could easily have been G4. There is consensus Deji isn't notable. If a redirect is created, it should be protected to prevent backdoor creation. Star Mississippi 18:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree with the G4 assessment as the listed AFDs all have occurred in March 2022 or earlier and there is significant content (at least on the current version in draft space) based on events from later in 2022, making it not "substantially identical to the deleted version" as G4 requires. Frank Anchor 19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I believe there's a point like BDI above where when there's continued out of process re-creation, G4 gets broadened. I may be incorrect on that though. Star Mississippi 21:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Because this isn't explicit in G4, I tend to prefer create protection (salting) rather than expanding the CSD in cases of repeated disruptive re-creation. We've seen things G4'ed that at least deserved another discussion, and our guidance has generally been "recreate it yourself if you've got better sources now than at the time of deletion" because DRV is not a necessary stop when it's just a case of the deleted article being TOOSOON and now notability has been established since the correct-at-the -time deletion. Jclemens ( talk) 22:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This is another case, like the Battle for Dream Island, where fanatical fans, or ultras, have been their own worst enemy. By repeatedly trying to game the title in order to get an article into article space, they have ensured that there will never be an article in article space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Concur with User:Jclemens, but with a comment that the requirement for COI disclosures is pro forma. These editors are not acting like COI editors, but like ultras. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    You're probably right, although I suspect that "ultras" who are sufficiently ultra are indistinguishable from COI editors using our public processes. I dislike attempts to game the system from whatever source, and prefer notability arguments be coherent and sensible: "notable for being a YouTuber who also got into boxing" doesn't cohere, in my mind. Jclemens ( talk) 20:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment So if these "ultras" killed his notability if it otherwise would have been established had it not been for this extensive creation and deletion history of poorly sourced articles by these "ultras", then does that mean we should delete the articles for the Paul brothers and KSI (his brother) too for not passing GNG (which they clearly do; any AFD for them will be SNOWed because they dont have fanboy article creations and deletions from before they were notable)? This is a classic example of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" on Wikipedia: when he finally is notable, the past reputation prevails. Wikipedia's biases against YouTubers are showing clearly here. Disgusting. Shameful. I neither hold a COI, as a college student from California who has no personal association, nor am an Ultra, as I abide by Wikipedia policies. I just know, given my YouTube expertise, that he is now notable for his independent ventures. While notability isn't inherent, he earned his notability himself despite being related and around other notable people regularly. DrewieStewie ( talk) 20:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I've on occasions opined the same way, but the deceptive way this case was presented drives my thinking: It's one thing for a petitioner to arrive with clean hands, and entirely another for them to arrive with intentionally deceptive behavior, on top of an extensive history of bad behavior from others with respect to this subject. So no, we're not saying "no article even if GNG pass," we're saying "AGF has been exhausted with respect to this subject." Jclemens ( talk) 22:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Jclemens: Ahhh, okay. I can actually agree with the assume good faith part in respect to others who have been involved with article creation of this subject. I do not condone it at all, and as such desire to distinguish myself from them. Although I’ve been watching KSI and Deji’s videos since my teenage years, I personally did not become involved with this Wikipedia saga involving an article for Deji at all until I stumbled on the mainspace article and submitted the move request shortly before the boxing match. In essence, consider me a Wikipedian who has been active for many years who stumbled upon this case and created this deletion review without realizing the extent of the prior saga of 25+ speedy deletions and hadn’t even been considering the prior AFDs in 2022 until a comment was made about them on the requested move and the G5 had occurred. :) For me, I was trying to figure out the best way to move forward and restore the article. Hopefully somebody who is familiar with the subject and has sufficient skill and reputation to bypss AFC can get it done, since I am too busy myself. cheers! DrewieStewie ( talk) 22:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • send to AfD. There are new sources (e.g. this) that probably get us past WP:N. The past behavior of superfans isn't an inclusion criteria. The question is if WP:N is passed. And I suspect it is, but that's for AfD to decide. Hobit ( talk) 16:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse/keep deleted, delete all the drafts, list at WP:DEEPER, and re-read User:JzG/And the band played on.... Stifle ( talk) 09:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This article currently exists in main space now under this page title. It was tagged for CSD G4 deletion but I untagged it while this discussion is going on. Please consider what should happen with it, along with any drafts that exist. My only opinion is that I expect future attempts will be made at creating an article on this subject, it's just a question of in what namespace and under which page titles. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Since my previous comment; somebody (not banned) re-created the article in mainspace by updatimg the draft, thereby undoing the G5 (as the creator was not at all blocked or banned). Somebody then placed a G4, which was rescinded pending this discussion (as it has proven controversial and heavily debated). There were a few contested deletion comments in the tallk page as well, which had weight. Now, its a discussion of notability and whether or not it should stay, with half saying that this is a perrenial proposal that should remain out of mainspace (due to good faith being depleted by past fanboy behavior before notability wwas achieved to Wikipedia standards), and another half saying that notability has been achieved and that an article is now warranted due to his involvement in various ventures with increased independent stature from before. Never the less, the bar still appears to be higher due to fanboy behavior, which should not be a factor in 2022 for this subject, per Hobit. I'm hoping the end result is that the article remains up (as it looks satisfactory to me and established citation norms); and upon this discussion being closed, I intend on re-opening my previously in-progress move discussion, should that be necessary. "And the band played on" is the type of example that should expire and no longer matter after certain conditions have been met, and I think this example has met that criteria, coming from someone who stumbled upon this case in 2022 and had knowledge of the subject both before and after the notibility criteria were met. :) DrewieStewie ( talk) 03:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_November_15&oldid=1124320291"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2022 November 14
2022 November 16 >

15 November 2022

  • Deji (YouTuber) – Deletion endorsed. There is no clear consensus whether WP:G4 or WP:G5 currently applies, but it has been discovered that the article has already been deleted twice at AfD and apparently some 20+ times by other means under a multitude of titles. As a result, the community is frustrated with the many disruptive attempts to evade scrutiny and to game an article about this topic into Wikipedia, and decides to keep the article deleted. People point out that User:JzG/And the band played on... applies here. Sandstein 09:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Deji (YouTuber) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

While this page was speedily deleted under G5, I strongly feel that was not the appropriate decision in that case, given that it wouldn't have been deleted if not for the G5. On the talk page, there was a move discussion in progress initiated by me, the subject meets the notability requirements now as opposed to when prior AFDs had occurred towards the subject years ago, and this occurred in the aftermath of the Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Deji fight on Sunday. The article was very well sourced, although I should note that I have found out that an identical draft exists at Draft: Deji Olatunji, which provided a foundation to the article as it appeared immediately before deletion. Either the deletion should be overruled and the move discussion should be closed as successful, or the draft should be speedily converted to an article and the article title is immediately unsalted. DrewieStewie ( talk) 21:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Allow recreation As stated above this article is notable and should be allowed to be re-created by a non-banned user. So I think a speedy conversion of the draft is the most appropriate way to get this content into mainspace. With of course the old move discussion being called successful for this new article. Paulpat99 ( talk) 22:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation No issue with this (or any G5 page) being recreated by any user in good standing. No opinion regarding a title move. Frank Anchor 03:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • If it were only appropriate to delete pages as G5s if they would have been deleted anyway then we wouldn't have G5; that it was an unattributed copy of the draft version is all the more reason to delete it; and it's never been salted. — Cryptic 04:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Aha, I see now that it's Deji Olatunji that's salted, after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji Olatunji and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oladeji Olatunji at a (different) attempt at a scrutiny-avoiding title change. Most of the substantial coverage on the draft is years old. Endorse on all counts, don't unsalt. — Cryptic 04:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
      • @ Cryptic: The page in 2022 absolutely would NOT have been deleted if it hadn't been for whom created the article, causing the G5 to begin with when it otherwise wouldn't have happened. I should hereby issue this Correction on my part that the actual article, at the time of the G5, although having a foundation with the draft, was heavily expanded upon entering the mainspace, such as having a furnished and up to date early life and YouTube career section, and as such the word "identical" has been struck through from the proposal. Recent events, such as facing Mayweather (!!!!!!) have indicated that the notability has since been established after the fact of the AFDs. We should NOT be putting now-notable subjects into permanent deletion purgatory over some poorly created and sourced articles from YEARS ago from before they were notable enough for Wikipedia. DrewieStewie ( talk) 06:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Also added AfD from 2020 at this title to header, which had not been done. I'll note that it included significant, identified sockpuppetry then. Not trying to ABF here, but this is not a pattern of behavior suggesting that mainspace-appropriateness has been established. Jclemens ( talk) 05:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
      • @ Jclemens: I have removed that from the header in good faith, as it is the G5 speedy deletion being contested, NOT that AFD from years ago. DrewieStewie ( talk) 06:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
        • That's not your call to make. You claim to be protesting a G5 deletion, but the real problem here is a history of inappropriate creation, repeated deletion, and evasion of create protection, which your action served to obfuscate. So, I amend my opinion to Endorse, salt all remaining non-create-protected-titles, require AfC, and require all contributors to AfC to attest to no COI as part of the AfC approval process. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 15:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Also a March 2022 afd and salting at Deji (Youtuber) ( AfD discussion), plus another ancient one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedy Shorts Gamer. — Cryptic 06:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
      @ Cryptic: Ahhh, gotcha. Wasn’t aware of that one. No objections to that one being listed, although it should definitely be noted that the Mayweather fight hadn’t even been anywhere near announced yet at that point. (That AFD’s title also stylized YouTube incorrectly.) DrewieStewie ( talk) 06:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Three more deleted versions at Deji olatunji, Deji Olatunji (ComedyShortsGamer), and Deji Olatunji (Comedyshortsgamer). I'll see if I can come up with a blacklist regex without too many false positives. — Cryptic 06:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • And there've also been article-length versions at Comedyshortsgamer, Comedy shorts gamer, ComedyShortsGamer (Entertainer), ComedyShortsGamer (Deji), ComedyShortsGamer (Youtuber), and ComedyShortsGamer(YouTuber). Comedy Shorts Gamer (entertainer) exists as a redirect to his brother, KSI. I can... maybe... see a case for a redirect from Deji Olatunji to there too, or to the fight article. Not from this name, though; disambiguated names make for poor redirects. (And do we normally have articles for retired boxers' exhibition matches, anyway? Shouldn't that merit maybe a one-sentence mention in Floyd Mayweather Jr., at most?) — Cryptic 07:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
      @ Cryptic: Clearly he wouldn’t have been positioned against Mayweather if he wasn’t notable enough from YouTube and his activities with his brother and other YouTubers/media personalities to be placed in such a headlining match, regardless of if it was exhibition or professional. There’s no way a non-notable owner of a McDonald’s franchise in Wyoming could ever get such a match. Deji has though. Because he has established notability. Are all the Endorse voters forgetting about GNG here?! Good Grief! I agree that not every million+ YouTuber is notable enough, but sometimes it’s taken too far with things like this, because when someone actually has demonstrated such notability, Wikipedians often appears reluctant and ignorant to actually recognize that notability. If a notable headlining boxing match with its own event article is not grounds establishing notability for creation of a BLP, then what the fuck is??? Honestly. This appears to be a case of crazed fans attempting to make an article over a period of several years being held against a subject when notability is finally established for them, guilty because of the past instead of the present. DrewieStewie ( talk) 08:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse if this is an appeal of the G5 deletion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I deleted the article, and for what it's worth here are my thoughts.
In the discussion above there seems to be some confusion between the issue of whether this deletion was justified and the issue of whether the article should now be allowed to be re-created. As far as my deletion is concerned, nobody has raised any objection to it apart from the totally bizarre "While this page was speedily deleted under G5, I strongly feel that was not the appropriate decision in that case, given that it wouldn't have been deleted if not for the G5"... ???? Well, if we can't speedily delete a page under a particular deletion criterion if it wouldn't be deleted if it weren't for that criterion, then when can we ever speedily delete a page? I don't think I need to say any more about that.
As far as the issue of allowing re-creation is concerned, the article has at least three times been deleted at deletion discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji (YouTuber), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji Olatunji, & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oladeji Olatunji, and it has been deleted at least twenty eight times under several titles, not counting deletion of redirects following page moves. I very much doubt that I have ever seen any other example of anywhere near that many attempts to get an article established in the face of such unambiguous consensus that it isn't suitable. I took no part in any of those deletion discussions, and until this deletion review came up I had no opinion whatsoever as to whether the subject is notable by Wikipedia standards, but I have now looked into it, and as far as I can see the claim that the subject of the article has now become more notable than at the times of those deletion discussions rests on the fact that he has once taken part in an "exhibition" boxing match. I have looked at the references cited for that match, both in the deleted article and in the article about the match. I don't see those references as providing convincing evidence that the match satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and they don't come anywhere remotely near to indicating that "Deji" satisfies them. JBW ( talk) 16:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Re: I very much doubt that I have ever seen any other example of anywhere near that many attempts to get an article established in the face of such unambiguous consensus that it isn't suitable. may I introduce you to the Battle for Dream Island and its edit filters and salt collection? It has good company Star Mississippi 18:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse G5 but it also could easily have been G4. There is consensus Deji isn't notable. If a redirect is created, it should be protected to prevent backdoor creation. Star Mississippi 18:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree with the G4 assessment as the listed AFDs all have occurred in March 2022 or earlier and there is significant content (at least on the current version in draft space) based on events from later in 2022, making it not "substantially identical to the deleted version" as G4 requires. Frank Anchor 19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I believe there's a point like BDI above where when there's continued out of process re-creation, G4 gets broadened. I may be incorrect on that though. Star Mississippi 21:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Because this isn't explicit in G4, I tend to prefer create protection (salting) rather than expanding the CSD in cases of repeated disruptive re-creation. We've seen things G4'ed that at least deserved another discussion, and our guidance has generally been "recreate it yourself if you've got better sources now than at the time of deletion" because DRV is not a necessary stop when it's just a case of the deleted article being TOOSOON and now notability has been established since the correct-at-the -time deletion. Jclemens ( talk) 22:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This is another case, like the Battle for Dream Island, where fanatical fans, or ultras, have been their own worst enemy. By repeatedly trying to game the title in order to get an article into article space, they have ensured that there will never be an article in article space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Concur with User:Jclemens, but with a comment that the requirement for COI disclosures is pro forma. These editors are not acting like COI editors, but like ultras. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    You're probably right, although I suspect that "ultras" who are sufficiently ultra are indistinguishable from COI editors using our public processes. I dislike attempts to game the system from whatever source, and prefer notability arguments be coherent and sensible: "notable for being a YouTuber who also got into boxing" doesn't cohere, in my mind. Jclemens ( talk) 20:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment So if these "ultras" killed his notability if it otherwise would have been established had it not been for this extensive creation and deletion history of poorly sourced articles by these "ultras", then does that mean we should delete the articles for the Paul brothers and KSI (his brother) too for not passing GNG (which they clearly do; any AFD for them will be SNOWed because they dont have fanboy article creations and deletions from before they were notable)? This is a classic example of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" on Wikipedia: when he finally is notable, the past reputation prevails. Wikipedia's biases against YouTubers are showing clearly here. Disgusting. Shameful. I neither hold a COI, as a college student from California who has no personal association, nor am an Ultra, as I abide by Wikipedia policies. I just know, given my YouTube expertise, that he is now notable for his independent ventures. While notability isn't inherent, he earned his notability himself despite being related and around other notable people regularly. DrewieStewie ( talk) 20:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I've on occasions opined the same way, but the deceptive way this case was presented drives my thinking: It's one thing for a petitioner to arrive with clean hands, and entirely another for them to arrive with intentionally deceptive behavior, on top of an extensive history of bad behavior from others with respect to this subject. So no, we're not saying "no article even if GNG pass," we're saying "AGF has been exhausted with respect to this subject." Jclemens ( talk) 22:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Jclemens: Ahhh, okay. I can actually agree with the assume good faith part in respect to others who have been involved with article creation of this subject. I do not condone it at all, and as such desire to distinguish myself from them. Although I’ve been watching KSI and Deji’s videos since my teenage years, I personally did not become involved with this Wikipedia saga involving an article for Deji at all until I stumbled on the mainspace article and submitted the move request shortly before the boxing match. In essence, consider me a Wikipedian who has been active for many years who stumbled upon this case and created this deletion review without realizing the extent of the prior saga of 25+ speedy deletions and hadn’t even been considering the prior AFDs in 2022 until a comment was made about them on the requested move and the G5 had occurred. :) For me, I was trying to figure out the best way to move forward and restore the article. Hopefully somebody who is familiar with the subject and has sufficient skill and reputation to bypss AFC can get it done, since I am too busy myself. cheers! DrewieStewie ( talk) 22:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • send to AfD. There are new sources (e.g. this) that probably get us past WP:N. The past behavior of superfans isn't an inclusion criteria. The question is if WP:N is passed. And I suspect it is, but that's for AfD to decide. Hobit ( talk) 16:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse/keep deleted, delete all the drafts, list at WP:DEEPER, and re-read User:JzG/And the band played on.... Stifle ( talk) 09:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This article currently exists in main space now under this page title. It was tagged for CSD G4 deletion but I untagged it while this discussion is going on. Please consider what should happen with it, along with any drafts that exist. My only opinion is that I expect future attempts will be made at creating an article on this subject, it's just a question of in what namespace and under which page titles. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Since my previous comment; somebody (not banned) re-created the article in mainspace by updatimg the draft, thereby undoing the G5 (as the creator was not at all blocked or banned). Somebody then placed a G4, which was rescinded pending this discussion (as it has proven controversial and heavily debated). There were a few contested deletion comments in the tallk page as well, which had weight. Now, its a discussion of notability and whether or not it should stay, with half saying that this is a perrenial proposal that should remain out of mainspace (due to good faith being depleted by past fanboy behavior before notability wwas achieved to Wikipedia standards), and another half saying that notability has been achieved and that an article is now warranted due to his involvement in various ventures with increased independent stature from before. Never the less, the bar still appears to be higher due to fanboy behavior, which should not be a factor in 2022 for this subject, per Hobit. I'm hoping the end result is that the article remains up (as it looks satisfactory to me and established citation norms); and upon this discussion being closed, I intend on re-opening my previously in-progress move discussion, should that be necessary. "And the band played on" is the type of example that should expire and no longer matter after certain conditions have been met, and I think this example has met that criteria, coming from someone who stumbled upon this case in 2022 and had knowledge of the subject both before and after the notibility criteria were met. :) DrewieStewie ( talk) 03:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_November_15&oldid=1124320291"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE