Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low Tier God

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 delete. Star Mississippi 03:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Low Tier God[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Low Tier God (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)

1. The page does not establish notability for the subject. All sources tangentially mention it. 2. This page also appears to be a frequent target of vandalism by malicious actors. The subject has entered the page's talk page to request deletion before, which is not trivial per WP:BLP. 3. The article's apparent notability comes from the subject having a YouTube channel, but they have been permanently removed from the platform as of December of last year. My tightness (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Regarding it being sourced well: I'm not sure I can agree. BLP calls for a subject to have an article or independent source that squarely establishes its relevance. Here, every single source tangentially mentions the subject as part of something else. --My tightness (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      A steward already got rid of all of the unsourced stuff; Everything else was kept. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 18:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's great but has nothing to do with my point. The sources in it right now do not establish subject's notability; they only tangentially mention him. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people) "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." --My tightness (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        there were sources that actually did, but you literally removed all of them earlier. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 23:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't remove anything. Your attack on me is not very helpful to this discussion. --My tightness (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Im not attacking you. (if my previous reply came off as an attack, I apologize.) Im just pointing out that you removed a lot of stuff from the page earlier, and it included sources that had the subject as notable. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 04:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, fair enough. Just for anyone else reading: I didn't remove anything on the page. I never edited it before I read it the day I nominated it for deletion due to the problems I listed at the top. --My tightness (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No, the article is not reliably sourced where the only actual reliable sources hardly mention him or only mention his negatives. "Being well known" within his eSports community also doesn't mean a damn. We don't have a page on Chris-chan either, despite their infamy. I've tagged it with G10, because it is currently unsuitable for mainspace. The subject also requested deletion, and as someone that may barely scrape GNG (which I don't think is met), that should happen per policy. If the tag gets removed again, I'm blanking the page save for his infobox and lede. I take anything regarding BLPs very seriously, especially if the subject requests it and the sources are wholly lacking. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the page meeting G10, and have untagged it. Deleting seems fine per request and lack of in-depth sourcing, but speedy deletion is not required here. —Kusma (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma; Why wouldn't it be? I'm must say, I'm quite disappointed by the narrow application of G10 here. Is the article entirely negative? Yep, the "Career" section was entirely negative and read more like a list of controversies. Was it unsourced? In a BLP, if it lacks multiple reliable sources (or poorly sourced) and is contentious, then yes, it's considered good as unsourced (especially if they are mostly incidental mentions) per WP:BLP. Is there a neutral reversion to go back to? Not really, unless then he absolutely now meets A7. Sure, speedy deletions should be highly controversial, but I'm not seeing this here. He's a minor figure, requested page deletion, and the page is entirely negative (save for his super minor appearance on show, but that alone is something CSD-worthy). Literally no reason to drag this out. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2020 versions of the page at least do not read entirely negative, especially as this is a YouTuber whose career seems to be built on being controversial. I would like us to have a discussion now to find out whether he is notable as a controversial YouTuber. If the page is speedily deleted, it can be recreated at any time, but if the page is deleted through AfD, deletion is more likely to stick. In any case, the page does not meet WP:CSD#G10, as two different administrators have told you already. —Kusma (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that the 2020 version is any better. And "two different administrators" is also a terrible reason. If the entire bulk of the article is poorly sourced negative information, then it should qualify for G10. And it's also pretty obvious that he's not notable as it stands with only one actual reliable source (Hollywood Reporter) discussing him in-depth (about his ban). I don't care if he built his career by being controversial (and clearly he wants it deleted, so it's not like he's actively trying to cause uproar). If you remove all the unreliable sources, your left with information that he's a gamer and YouTuber (which does not satisfy A7), was banned for racist remarks, and made a minor appearance on ELeague. That's not an article. If we want to claim that now A7 is met because he appeared on a TV show, then fine. But just like Big Brother guests or any sort of Got Talent Shows, he'll be deleted. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Kusma with respect to G10. I have no view at this time with respect to notability. Mz7 (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In addition to my concerns that this is an attack page (which included very negative content and apparently is so bad the subject is requesting deletion; if this is to be kept, serious revdels must be done) and should be speedily deleted under G10, the subject also does not meet the GNG. I challenge @WeaponizingArchitecture: to demonstrate their claim that this is a "decently sourced article" with respect to independent, secondary sources that provide significant coverage. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 17:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GhostOfDanGurney: To be honest I should've worded it better.
    To quote an admin: "This is a pretty longstanding BLP with some reliably sourced content. If there is a dispute about specific content violating WP:BLP, I would recommend WP:BLPN."
    Regardless, all of the sources listed actually confirmed the information that is being considered as "attacks." Furthermore, Just because his youtube channel was deleted doesn't immediatley revoke notability, considering he does or did esports. (the sources listed in the article point to this.) WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 23:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how an WP:ATTACK PAGE work. If someone is hardly notable, and sources only cover their controversies (we see this a lot with YouTubers where the only reliable sources available are made after their blunders for clicks), then it is an attack page. If 2 sources exist that both say "Jim is an asshole for his tweets", we still wouldn't have a page that has that as that opinion as the bulk of it. Because Wikipedia is not a news or tabloid site. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Low Tier God is not "Hardly Noteable" by any stretch. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 01:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your opinion, and it's pretty objectively wrong. There's two total sources that deal with him in-depth. Wikipedia doesn't care how notable he is in his community. We care about what third-party, independent sources say. And there's nothing there. Provide me with five reliable sources that demonstrate notability (preferably outside of his scandals). Why? I Ask (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to mention this earlier, but the sources didn't necessarily say "Low Tier God is an asshole." WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 05:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete or at most draftify; it fails WP:NBIO and should not be in mainspace in this poor state. Since the person the article about is a public figure, per WP:BIODEL, they cannot reasonably have the article taken down if they are indeed notable, but given the sources here, that is in doubt. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I still view G10 as unnecessary for this article, I think Why? I Ask has made a pretty convincing argument for deletion for lack of notability under WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. We do have [1] in The Hollywood Reporter as one example of in-depth RS coverage, and I declined speedy deletion because of this source in combination with the mentions in Polygon and ESPN (generally, attack pages are wholly negative and unsourced, and this page did have these sources, as well as a relatively long history, not all of which was negative—although I'm sympathetic to the desire to remove borderline BLP content as quickly as possible, under these circumstances I think we should use the standard discussion process). After some thought, I now agree that these sources alone are insufficient to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. The other sources that were cited in the article did not go towards notability, with several references to YouTube videos, random blogs, and primary sources promoting specific events. It doesn't look like this person is encyclopedically notable either for his controversies or for his YouTube content creation. Mz7 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 14:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really don't think he's notable enough to have a article plus there's erroneous info on the page such as the fact that his name isn't actually "Dalauan Sparrow", it's (Redacted). I find it not unlikely that this page is watched by (Redacted) himself to inflate his ego even more considering he's hiding even his real name on it. Second Skin (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood Reporter has it as Dalauan. Also, please refrain from making assumed negative comments about people, even outside of mainspace articles. Someone claiming to be the subject has already requested deletion, so I somehow doubt what you said is the case. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with the admins that this doesn't meet G10. In my opinion Why? I Ask seems to have misunderstood the meaning of an attack page and incorrectly applied G10 to LTG's page. Reading this discussion, Why? I Ask asserts that the page serves as an attack page because most of the content disparages him in some way, only focusing on the negative aspects of him as a person and YouTuber. Looking at the previous revisions of his article that don't involve obviously reverted vandalism, the closest claim I could find that was arguably disparaging was one of him being notorious for quitting games in anger. Although it came from the unreliable source Looper, that claim isn't inherently negative in that it was meant to insult him, but rather represent a reflection of his reputation from the world at large. If more reliable sources existed that discussed his notorious reputation in this manner - like Kotaku, Polygon or even newspapers like The New York Times - this wouldn't be an issue; the claim could work as attribution where it's clearly the opinion and/or analysis of the journalists working for such outlets. If you're arguing that the article's contents attack his character because reliable sources have referred to him only in a negative light, please see WP:BIASED. At most, this problem with the article's focus on negative events is merely an example of due and undue weight. If more reliable sources note and analyze his negative reputation than not, that just means it's a majority viewpoint in line with due weight, not an attempt to demean or harass him. A genuine attack page would be, well, an attack page. It would contain unsourced, bad faith insults about his character akin to an Encyclopedia Dramatica page where every sentence in the article reads less like an informative article and more like cyberbullying.
In general, plenty of BLPs of controversial beings exist in Wikipedia that meet the notability guidelines in spite of their reputation, because they have reliable sources discussing them significantly. That's what separates them from Low Tier God. The problem with this article shouldn't be whether the content is a wholly negative attack page because he's a controversial figure. Rather, the main issue is the lack of reliable sources that actually discuss him significantly as a controversial figure. In that regard, I agree that he may not meet the notability guidelines. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a lack of reliable sources, then (for BLPs) there's no sources. In the Polygon or Vice, they are single-sentence mentions. That's not enough to include something contentious in a BLP. Sure, I'm not against saying Hitler was evil because the sources are there. But this fellow is only famous (in reliable sources at least) for exceedingly minor controversies. (Not that I am trying to downplay his poor actions, but in the grand scheme of things...) You cannot have a page on a BLP that is only poorly covered controversies. That's an attack page if I ever. And when it comes to Wikipedia articles on minor internet celebrities, you better believe I am going to be liberal when applying G10. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking into the person i can't find anything that really makes him a notable person outside of the video game community on Youtube and even with in that his notability appears limited to supposed controversies and the people that enjoyes indulging themselves in such things.Halmstad (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - He was on TV as a top division player in his sport.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "He was on TV" is not a valid keep rationale nor is being a top Street Fighter player. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:REALITYTV: "Brief public exposure...does not make one notable." - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 17:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/draftify per a lack of WP:SIGCOV and failure of WP:NBIO, but oppose the invocation of G10. DecafPotato (talk) 01:50, 27 February 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/Low_Tier_God&oldid=1142194935"