Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Fernandez

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. Noting the BLP concerns. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Fernandez

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Opening an AfD on behalf of IP.

Tyw7 remarks: The creator of the page is Stevenfernandez00 (talk · contribs), so the user may have an extremely close relationship to the article and can possibly be a conflict of interest case. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP user reason given: As a person without a Wikipedia account, I am requesting someone else complete the deletion process for this page. I'm leaving this detailed note for your consideration, and I do not intend to return because I don't have time to wrangle and hairsplit. I'm laying out my perspective, and it is up to you Wikipedia editors to decide.

The issue is that Fernandez was / is a notable Youtuber years ago when he was a minor. Also when he was a minor, he was caught up in a situation where he was charged. The charges were dropped, he never faced trial, and he was never punished.

The Wikipedia page is, for my search engine, the top result for his name. The details that underlie his notability, and thus reason for inclusion on Wikipedia, are continuously removed. The article history reveals that. Because of this, the charges and surrounding controversy make up 50% of the page.

This is a poor use of Wikipedia. Either Fernandez is notable, in which case the article should reflect that notability, rather than its current minimized (and in my view suppressed) state, or he is not notable and the page should not exist.

Given the currents state of the article, the page in my view constitutes an "attack page" (G10). The article history reveals considerable effort to maintain the article as a stub + criminal history page.

As far as I know no non-notable person is featured on Wikipedia for criminal charges that have been dropped and never went to trial for events that took place while the person was a minor. The page also constitutes a breach of the claimed sensitivities surrounding the biographies of living persons. The claims of the accusations against Fernandez may not be unsourced, but they do not tell the whole story, and they are presented on Wikipedia, (and _by_ Wikipedia) in an unbalanced way and thus in my view is unfair and unjust.

The page does not, for example, note how the Los Angeles Police Detective Ninette Toosbuy targeted Fernandez in part because of his Youtube comedic pick up artist persona. This article (cited in the Wikipedia page) says that he's "likely to face more charges." Yet all the charges were dropped.

https://www.newsweek.com/steven-fernandez-youtube-lapd-los-angeles-414999

Toosbuy continues to feature Fernandez as a major case she cracked on her personal webpage:

https://www.toosbuyconsulting.com/baby-scumbag

In my view, the infamy surrounding this case, which I reiterate produced no trial or conviction or punishment, has possibly more to do with the fame seeking of Ninette Toosbuy than the supposed (unproven, untrialed, unconvicted, unpunished) "crimes" of Fernandez. But nobody can add those details or reflections to the page because nobody in the establishment media has decided that sorting through these details is worth their time. So it counts as "original research".

So the story on Wikipedia does not represent the whole or true story of what happened. In that sense, the page fails as a provider of true and accurate information.

I have noticed that over the past few years #MeToo type accusations have ballooned on biographies, at times getting space that outweighs the information that establishes notability. Wikipedia has an interest in maintaining balance in these cases, or it risks losing credibility over the long term. If Wikipedia permits every vague, unproven, uncharged, untrialed, unconvicted claim to become the life story of people on Wikipedia, readers will have to find their biographies elsewhere.

In conclusion, as I said this page presents itself on search pages as the first word on Steven Fernandez. He is a young person trying to rebuild his life after the roller coaster of online fame and online infamy. It isn't the place of Wikipedia to keep Fernandez on trial for the rest of his life. If Wikipedia editors want to keep the page, then the page must be notable. For that, the details of his life (the reason for his fame years ago) must be returned. For that to happen, the page probably has to be locked (since otherwise it will likely be turned into a stub again). In my view, this is the proper way to resolve this issue. Fernandez is a significant figure in the history of online influencers, especially on Youtube, and this probably should be reflected on Wikipedia.

However, if these changes are not made to establish notability and ensure balance, the page will continue to constitute a G10 violation and should be deleted.

For more information from Fernandez's side, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtUaoQYPy_Y

To understand his early fame, see this video from PBS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXjVosJh-dc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion_as_attack_pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.41.64 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination opened on behalf of IP -- Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Popular culture, and Internet. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube isn't valid as a reliable source, Newsweek has been depreciated as a source. The toobuyconsulting isn't a reliable source. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*shrugs* That's the reason what the IP user gives. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna be honest, I didn't read the whole nom because it's way too long and disjointed. I initially was leaning toward delete however the vice profile and others really, really go into detail. With that being said, I'd suggest rewriting the article to reflect why he's notable - it's not for being an internet personality, it's for the alleged multiple sexual assaults and rape. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing here to justify having this article. Athel cb (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article only contains information on his alleged criminal activity that he (according to the nominator) was not convicted for. In my view this public figure is low profile now even if they were important roughly a decade ago (See changes in high/low profile in WP:LPI.) Following the policy in WP:SUSPECT that arrests that do not lead to convictions for low profile individuals should on the balance not be included, it looks to me that this article should be deleted. I don't have any thoughts on the COI of the nominator. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of evidence for enduring notability, and most particularly per WP:BLP policy on respect for privacy - allegations of criminality by a minor not followed up with charges would only ever belong in a biography in very exceptional circumstances, and such circumstances do not remotely exist here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP with the only notoriety (rather than notability) was being accused of rape while a minor. For BLP's sake, we don't publish this kind of non-article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very week keep I think the Vice [1] and the LA Weekly article (already in the article) are GNG, but just barely. <--Redacted--> helps add to the notability, otherwise we don't have much to go on for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the Redacted thingie was their run-in with the law the article talked about. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he's really only notable for alleged crimes, especially such serious ones, BLP concerns trump GNG. Ovinus (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.