Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Cenat riot

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

The result was keep and merge‎ into a single article. Most editors focussed on notability of the event in general, but the question of two articles vs one has also been addressed. There were some inappropriate comments and unusual !votes, but I think most good-faith participants support a merged article on the topic. Thanks to Epicgenius for merging the articles. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 09:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Cenat riot

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Kai Cenat riot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kai Cenat Union Square giveaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS; a minor riot, that currently lacks the WP:SUSTAINED coverage required for events. While WP:NOTCRYSTAL forbids us from speculating about whether such coverage will exist, I will add that I don't see any indication that it will.

I am also nominating the following article; I would support redirecting both to Kai Cenat.

Kai Cenat Union Square giveaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) BilledMammal (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep riot article, merge giveaway article. Per WP:RAPID. The event happened less than 24 hours ago, so it's too soon to assume that this event will or will not be notable. Per WP:LASTING, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." While I wouldn't rush to create articles that early on, I wouldn't support an immediate deletion either. However, since the giveaway caused the riot, I think it would be better to merge. S5A-0043Talk 11:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I support redirection; if it turns out that sustained coverage does occur then the content is still there and can easily be restored. I consider that possibility unlikely, but regardless in the meantime we should not have an article in mainspace that doesn't meet our notability requirements. I note also that rapid isn't a reason to keep an article that has been nominated; it is merely a recommendation to delay nominating the article, that in this case I didn't feel was relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just keep per WP:RAPID, renominate later if needed. —siroχo 11:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now a lot of news are written as article, which is not worth advocating. If there is no follow-up report, it should be merged into the person article.--日期20220626 (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAPID as stated above. ADifferentMan (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete the "giveaway" article per WP:A10. Draftify this article as a compromise between WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RAPID. My feeling is that this is just another slow-news-day story about influencers causing trouble in public and will be forgotten about before this discussion even closes, and that is precisely why an encyclopedia should not cover breaking news. Incubating in draftspace will allow time for proper coverage of the event to develop (instead of the "rush to publish something" stories we're seeing now), but most likely that coverage will just never happen. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge reduced details to Kai Cenat I guess we just forget teens did this at malls all the time for pop acts in the past, and back when the Beatles arrived in America. If this happens in some power center in suburban Denver nobody would care, but our old friend East Coast bias is here to oversensationalize what was at the end of the day just a badly-organized stuff drop. And it's bad form to name a 'riot' after someone, this must be renamed something better and deleted as a BLP issue. Nate • (chatter) 14:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This was a significant riot, with dozens of arrests, numerous injured and extensive damage to vehicles and local businesses. Keep this article, merge the giveaway article into it. Juneau Mike (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The other article is not meant to cover the giveaway and only the giveaway. I chose the giveaway title because it described the entire event. The giveaway article is longer than the riot article, so the riot article should redirect to the giveaway article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them togheter into one article
Sebbog13 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SUSTAINED as it says "over a sufficiently significant period of time". This riot happened less than 24 hours ago as of my writing, developments since then include Kai taking a picture of the "riot" and posting it online: [1]. Another reason to keep is the WP:DEPTH of the coverage involved. (BBC), (CNN), (ABC). The 14th Street–Union Square station was also shut down during the riot. (Bloomberg) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NYPOST - New York Post isn't a reliable source. WP:DEPTH isn't relevant here; the lack of sustained coverage is. BilledMammal (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal: Okay, so how isn't WP:DEPTH relevant here? Both WP:DEPTH and WP:SUSTAINED are from the same notability (WP:N) guideline. You also have not addressed where it says in the guideline "over a sufficiently significant period of time". 24 hours isn't "significant" when it comes to events, and WP:DEPTH in those 24 hours also establishes notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't relevant here because they are separate requirements; SUSTAINED must be met to keep the article, and as you point out it has not been.
    Both WP:DEPTH and WP:SUSTAINED are from the same notability (WP:N) guideline. DEPTH is part of WP:NEVENT, SUSTAINED is part of WP:N. BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I point that out? I said WP:SUSTAINED does not apply given such a short time frame. Also where are you getting that WP:DEPTH is part of WP:NEVENT? Even if that were the case this riot counts as an event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When you said 24 hours isn't "significant" when it comes to events. SUSTAINED doesn't include an exception for length of time the article has existed; while WP:IAR may apply to some events, such as the Assassination of Shinzo Abe, it doesn't apply to all events, and I don't see a reason why it would apply to this event.
    Also where are you getting that WP:DEPTH is part of WP:NEVENT? Follow the link to WP:DEPTH and check what guideline it is part of. BilledMammal (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the giveaway and riot articles. Also, I'd argue that the riot carries more notability than the giveaway. —theMainLogan (t•c) 17:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles, merge content to the article on Kai Cenat, and include a mention in the PlayStation 5 article with a link to the Kai Cenat article. I agree with Nate above that this seems to be an East Coast bias issue. If a incident of similar size had occurred in Los Angeles, it probably would have been covered as a "melee" or "civil disturbance". Also, the only other video game console I am aware of that caused people to do desperate things is the Nintendo Wii. WP already covers what happened in that rather unfortunate instance in the article on KDND. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The PlayStation is irrelevant. See The New York Times. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? That article states in the fifth paragraph: "Mr. Cenat and another streamer, Fanum, had announced plans to hand out PlayStation 5 consoles at the park at 4 p.m." So the PlayStation 5 is clearly relevant. I doubt that many people would have shown up if those two streamers had announced plans to hand out Chromebooks.--Coolcaesar (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's coverage of the PlayStation 5 does not need to include a tangential event. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both articles to Kai Cenat. This event is quite significant for myself as this is the very first time that protests came about with gaming related events, as if they have been online only all before this, even during pre-COVID era. But in a wider sense, this event is not notable and only relevant in some parts of the world. MarioJump83 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This riot was massive and dangerous. It was also in NYC out of all places. It will be talked about for a long time, especially on social media. Having this page is helpful and showcases how impactful it truly was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGotAPHD (talk • contribs) 00:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect both articles to Kai Cenat. Long term significance is zero. No deaths or serious injuries, a handful of arrests. Big deal. Subject fails WP:NEVENT WP:LASTING WP:GEOSCOPE WP:PERSISTENCE (coverage is already fading) and WP:SENSATIONAL. Both articles are a glaring violation of WP:DELAY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The impression that I get is that you're presupposing that it's not notable and attempting to back that up. From USA Today, Cenat is due in court on August 18. Coverage will clearly exist for his arraignment. From the guideline about lasting coverage: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect; plenty of other users have brought up that this AfD was opened rapidly. Not sure why this article has to be deleted when it's still getting routine edits. Riotous behavior does not need to rival January 6 to warrant an article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. There have been 65 arrests, which I would argue is more than a handful, especially for something that was only intended to be a giveaway of electronics. As for there being no deaths, it would be immoral to say that a riot isn’t notable just because a family wasn’t devastated by the death of a relative (“your son must lose his life for this article to be notable” would be a very condescending notability guideline). As for there being no serious injuries, of the at least nine people injured, an officer was severely beaten and a minor suffered burns from a large firecracker. In addition to the above, I cannot name a single other giveaway with such an unforeseen outcome as this one, and I would be very surprised if anybody else could.

    I understand why a lot of Wikipedia users would be biased towards scrutinising this article and therefore opting to delete or merge this article due to the sheer amount of (usually unsourced) fancruft surrounding content creators, but I also understand that if this was a regular riot, nobody would bat an eye as to wether it’s notable as a standalone article, especially since this article in particular is very reasonably sourced for an event relating to a twitch streamer. — Mugtheboss (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Both it's very clear that we don't need two articles on the riot/giveaway but I don't think we even need one, it's a single controversy related to a celebrity that will die down quickly and the large news coverage wasn't due to the notability of the riot but due to the fame of the person, so this can all be included in his bio article. EoRdE6(Talk) 02:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also note that most of the keep !votes seem to be making assertions without citing any policy or guidelines. Any objective reading of NEVENT leaves no real doubt that these articles do not meet P&G based criteria for inclusion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Articles I tend to have inclusionist tendencies when it comes to deleting articles, but I feel like two articles that cover basically the same thing is excessive. I would be open to copying the bulk of this article into Kai Cenat's page, but for now I still support a separate article covering the riots. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 03:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. I’m the original writer of this article. The reason I created it was due to the amount of arrests, the fact that this seems to have ended Kai Cenat’s career and will likely far outlive his relevance, the amount of property damage, and finally the amount of media attention this received. For example this was the first story covered on NBC Nightly last night. I feel that the aftermath will last for months if not years because of the circumstances that caused the riot will likely lead to legislation regulating social media events. I also agree with merging the Giveaway Article. CaptainAhab1841 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC) comment moved from top of page; feel free to revert if unwelcome — 2600:1700:87D3:3460:917D:D4E0:9CA4:9277 (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi CaptainAhab1841 Please read WP:NEVENT and also WP:DELAY. While your contributions to the project are appreciated, in this case it is likely the article's creation was premature and the subject does not appear to meet the community's criteria for inclusion. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think both sides have convincing arguments here, so I wouldn't use words like "likely" as that implies an outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have yet to read a credible P&G based argument for retention. But I will check in tomorrow and see if anything has changed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It gained enough traction to be notable in its own right. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please cite policy and guidelines to support your assertion. Please note the criteria for NEVENT which these pages appear to violate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't violate WP:NEVENT per WP:DEPTH and WP:LASTING, these arguments have already been drawn out above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DEPTH is one criteria, not exclusive of the others. LASTING is too silly for words. A "riot" that resulted in no deaths, no serious injuries, no substantial property damage, a handful of arrests and whose coverage is already fading? This doesn't pass the laugh test. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the laugh test? ImYourTurboLover (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What does the lack of deaths, injuries or proper damage have to do with whether the event meets the notability guidelines? Since when are those determining factors for if an event of this nature has a lasting impact? I assume you obviously don't mean that the riot needs said factors in order to be considered notable, let alone any riot. But isn't it enough that this event has had a plethora of news coverage that actually contextualized the event itself? I'd place my vote between a merge to Kai's article and weak keep because I'm still personally iffy on if this will have a lasting impact in a few years - maybe it will, maybe it won't, maybe it's too close to tell. But regardless, I think WP:LASTING's final sentence should also be taken into consideration: "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Maybe we should've waited at least a week or so to nominate for deletion, but oh well, too late now. PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have addressed the failure of the two pages to meet our criteria for inclusion in my above merge/redirect vote. The arguments being employed for article retention here would set the bar so low that almost any civil disturbance that get a couple days news coverage would qualify. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad Orientem I read your initial response and besides your point on the event's lasting impact, I disagree with you. The event has already received international coverage from a plethora of sources outside of New York (The Verge, ABC News, The Washington Post), and even outside the US (BBC News, Reuters), so geoscope shouldn't even come close to qualifying. Sensationalism is somewhat debatable but I don't see any unconfirmed rumors, speculation or any sort of info based on poor fact-checking circulating from this event; plenty of reliable outlets not only verified the info themselves through their editorial process but also checked other reliable outlets as well. As for persistence, other editors above also pointed out that he's awaiting trial so there may be more coverage that comes in addition to the already existing news about the event. That may be crystal-ball speculation, but a bit of common sense and partial rulebending could apply for until that date happens. Finally, I'd argue that if it doesn't fully pass NEVENT, it at least meets criteria #2 of it based on the sheer coverage alone. I still feel it's too close to tell its lasting impact, but WP:RAPID aptly applies. PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How many riots with International coverage happen worldwide in a given year? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have merged both articles now, as they had basically the same content. I have no opinion on whether the page should be named "Kai Cenat Union Square giveaway" or "Kai Cenat riot" or "Kai Cenat Union Square riot" or something else, nor whether this page should even be kept or deleted. – Epicgenius (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing that merge. I think that helps simplify things in the moment. —siroχo 05:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems like an event with lasting long-term significance that, if not now, will almost certainly merit an article in the future. Rather than a "minor civil disturbance", it paralyzed a city. Furthermore, the article's incredibly quick AfD goes against WP:RAPID. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Per Ad Orientem among others.--Catlemur (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify. No fatalities, fleeting, no wider scope, and if we are honest no long-term impact. And for those who wish to cite WP:RAPID, I shall counter with WP:DELAY, which is woefully undercited in situations such as these. The compromise for those who cite RAPID should be to draftify, not simply keep the article up in full form. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article doesn't seem to have much going in its favour. Thankfully the 'riot', was not a serious one.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is covered considerably by well known, reliable, and independent sources. EnbyPie08 (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To further prove my point, those news articles show that people offline DO care about the giveaway/raid, unlike something like, say Battle for Dream Island, which has little to no coverage outside YouTube videos and the Fandom wiki, thus making it not notable and unworthy of a Wikipedia article. EnbyPie08 (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Respectfully disagree with that topic meets WP:NOTNEWS. It's not original reporting, WP:ROUTINE news reports, who's who, or celebrity gossip. It also likely meets the WP:EVENT per "2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." This topic has received widespread national and international coverage- so far, it has received coverage in The New York Times [2] [3] (two articles, which is about as WP:SUSTAINED as you can get for such a recent event), CBS [4], Reuters [5], The Guardian [6], USA Today[7], AP [8], CNN [9], NBC [10], among many others. Wikipedialuva (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disagree with the "Delete" Vote. Level 4 Response "Highest level of disaster response", multiple injuries, tens of arrests, public riot hitting international news on verified news sources. Large enough article where it would overpower the Kai Cenat page itself. Doobie777 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely enough sources here from non-industry outlets to at the very least meet WP:RAPID. It probably meets NEVENT as it stands, but if there somehow isn't sustained coverage of this, it can be merged to the parent article eventually. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect both to Kai Cenat per nom and Ad Orientem, and WP:10YT. For a somewhat analogous example, we have Peekskill riots as distinct from Paul Robeson for good reasons. Robeson's career was long and varied, as is his article. The riots (plural) were sustained events that had social and political implications, and fleshing out the details in the parent article would be out of scope and add unnecessary length. None of these considerations apply here, where there is no need for a WP:SPINOUT. There is plenty of room in the parent article to add this, probably the most significant event so far in this very young influencer's life. StonyBrook babble 04:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @StonyBrook, Kai Cenat riot is no longer a standalone article, so what we're discussing is whether Kai Cenat Union Square giveaway is notable. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To reiterate, I am saying that the contents of Kai Cenat Union Square giveaway should be merged to a section within the parent, the title redirected there, and that Kai Cenat riot should also be redirected to that section. The episode (whatever we are calling it) is obviously notable enough to be included within another article but not as a standalone article. Thanks for all your efforts on NYC. StonyBrook babble 15:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see what you mean now. Thanks for clarifying. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kai Cenat as per WP:LASTING. While multiple reliable sources have covered the incident itself, this event, contrary to typical riots that have their own article, doesn't have an encyclopedically significant purpose/cause and, let's be honest, won't have any longlasting effects that makes it significant enough to keep as its own article, if any longlasting effect at all (which it probably won't). B3251 (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Comment - This should not have been a standalone article when it was created (see No Hurry View One). Now that it has been, it's the poster child for the reverse, WP:RUSHDELETE. The worldwide attention to this is undeniable (if bewildering). If the nom had been delayed for a mere 48 hours, an AfD on this would never have been suggested and it would have been a merge discussion on Talk. Will that notability be sustained? Probably not, but I don't know and neither does anyone else. If the coverage vanishes, come back to the talk page in a month or two (not tomorrow) and RfC a merge. Until then, it's widely sourced, (currently) relevant and (currently) notable. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do get the delete arguments due to the lack of sustained coverage over a long period of time, but it would be a little silly to try and wait weeks or months to create any WP article on a recent event. We don't do that for any other topic, why do that for this? There is quite a lot of coverage for this event now (honestly I'm surprised by the level), who's to say it will continue or not continue with said coverage? I would say it loosely fits WP:NEVENT anyway, and there is no harm in keeping it. If it turns out to not have sustained coverage, we can merge it into the main article later. BTW, this article was definitely created too early, but as the coverage stands now, it deserves an article. ULPS (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just maybe give it a name change to something like 2023 Union Square riot. Rexxx7777 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Been contemplating this for some time, and after checking Google News today and reading this discussion once more, I'm officially voting keep. I think many of the people voting delete or merge have missed the point on why others see the significance of this event. It isn't just about the deaths, injuries, arrests or destruction of property. Rather, it's emblematic of the societal impact of social media along with the dangers of parasocial relationships, and how this event is a consequence of these two ideas merging. A few hours ago this NPR piece was published that commented on how the riots reflected the influence of content creators on younger people, citing a researcher’s thoughts on the situation. The police and city officials also argued the same thing as shown in this AP News piece as well. It may still be a bit too soon to tell whether this will have a lasting impact, and we won't know if Cenat will get charged until after the 18th. However, if it does have a lasting impact, it stands as a cautionary tale on the disconnect between social media and reality, and what happens when people with unmitigated access to the internet seep into the real world. In that case, I'd say that it meets #1 of WP:NEVENT. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now, open AfD later if event isn't found to have lasting significance. The fact of the matter is: the people who are young and terminally online are overestimating its impact, while people who are more experienced and live in meatspace are underestimating it. We'll only find out which is the more accurate view in good time. 5.151.106.0 (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I skew younger than some on this site but far from Cenat's age group and I would not consider myself "terminally online", but the impact is what it is. I created the giveaway article after seeing the coverage in The New York Times, which signaled that this event was not just an instance of fans attending an event à la an average Taylor Swift concert, but a riotous event that tested the NYPD's response to a rapid mass gathering. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's been continuing coverage days after the event (see this morning's NYT), this triggered a code-4 NYPD response of which there have only been three this year (one for significant gun violence in the Bronx around the 4th of July, the other for the first arraignment of Donald Trump), numerous arrests were made, and Cenat himself has been criminally charged. It seems exceedingly likely local coverage of these proceedings will continue. U-dble (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per U-dble and PantheonRadiance. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:59, 10 August 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kai_Cenat_riot&oldid=1179665341"