Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:JackSucksAtLife
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: Delete and salt The community has clearly signaled it does not want an article on this subject, no need to given anyone any more false hopes. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This draft is being tendentiously resubmitted in order to try to create an article on a YouTuber who has been found to be non-notable in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Massey Welsh in December 2018. That title has been salted.
It was then recreated as JackSucksAtLife, an attempt to game the name, but was renominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JackSucksAtLife, and speedily deleted as G4 in October 2020. That title has also been salted.
A draft was then created again in May 2023 and submitted, and declined twice. I then Rejected the draft in November 2023, because the subject had already been found to be non-notable in two AFDs, and no real effort was being made to address the issue of notability. It was then resubmitted later in November 2023, with no attempt to discuss the rejection. I had said, in my rejection, that the draft should not be resubmitted without discussing the rejection (but we don't expect ultras to follow the instructions). It has then been declined two more times, and then Rejected again by User:CFA (thank you). The reviewers couldn't accept this draft even if we wanted to accept it, so continuing to submit it is useless. If the proponents actually have new sources that they want considered, and so are requesting that one of the titles be desalted, they should ask for community discussion at Deletion Review rather than just pointlessly resubmitting, which is wasting their time and that of the reviewers, who can't accept the draft even if wanted to accept it. So I am asking for community discussion to delete this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Resubmitting is not going to do anything except waste time. It was declined twice, rejected, declined two more times, then rejected again. If the creator(s) believe this would survive an AfD, they can take it to Deletion Review where other editors are able to weigh in. Then, the title can be de-salted and the article can be restored. I suppose this could also be userfied if any of the submitters want it. C F A 💬 20:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would also support salting the draft so we don't end up having to go through this again in a few months. C F A 💬 02:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I have done a small amount of work on this article but have never submitted it for review as I am aware the sources are weak & I believe that the subject barely passes GNG. I do think that it is unfair, however, to completely nominate this draft article for deletion when there are reliable sources like GQ Magazine, Bloomberg UK, Gry-Online, Hindustan Times and Gamestar all present in the article. Now many, at that point, would argue that none of the articles have his name in the title for example, but that is hardly fair and almost irrelevant to mention when articles like WillNE and Gibi ASMR exist. I believe there is a large amount of negative bias against this article and it has always kinda dipped into I don't like it territory. Comparing it to other pages, it should most likely exist, especially now that he has over 4.5 million subscribers on his main YouTube channel and has largely expanded in the past 5 years since all the commotion with this article took place. However, due to the past difficulties with this article I understand it may require a little more than these other articles to get it published. Overall I don't think this draft should be published just yet, but deletion is just plain unnecessary. George (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 2 article titles salted, 2 AFDs (with delete results) and 4 declines tells me there's absolutely no hope for this article/non-notable subject, Fliff-flaffing around on this article just wastes everyones time, Better off deleted. –Davey2010Talk 19:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Davey, I understand that this article does not have a great past, however, as I stated in my keep statement, there are full articles about the subject from Gamestar, Gry-Online and Hindustan Times and even a large mention in GQ Magazine and passing mentions in Bloomberg UK and Birmingham Live so this article would normally pass, yes weakly, but definitely would pass. The same argument is given every time this article gets opposed recently, its not the state of the article now, it's always about its past which was now over 6 years ago, but I would argue that the article now has enough reliable sources to pass and be created, given that articles like WillNE don't even have standalone fully reliable articles about them. George (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- You are free to nominate WillNE for deletion if you don't think he is notable. C F A 💬 23:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Again, this is my exact point. If I was to nominate it for deletion, it would likely be rejected due to the sources he has being 'sufficient' as he passes Wikipedia:GNG and all I'm trying to say is same goes for this article, in fact, there are even more reliable sources for this article so it is unfair to simply delete due to the amount of reliable sources there are about the subject and just judge the article based on it's past. George (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- You are free to nominate WillNE for deletion if you don't think he is notable. C F A 💬 23:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Davey, I understand that this article does not have a great past, however, as I stated in my keep statement, there are full articles about the subject from Gamestar, Gry-Online and Hindustan Times and even a large mention in GQ Magazine and passing mentions in Bloomberg UK and Birmingham Live so this article would normally pass, yes weakly, but definitely would pass. The same argument is given every time this article gets opposed recently, its not the state of the article now, it's always about its past which was now over 6 years ago, but I would argue that the article now has enough reliable sources to pass and be created, given that articles like WillNE don't even have standalone fully reliable articles about them. George (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete , I can confirm how the users behind the draft are repeatedly trying to include the article in mainspace. Salt the draft too to prevent additional and potential disruptive recreation. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, as I have stated above, I have worked on this article but have never submitted it for review. The article seems to keep being submitted by passers by of the article that haven't even worked on it / don't know how Wikipedia works. This is not my fault or anyone's fault who has actually tried to improve this article. If you would like to read my initial statement & "keep" paragraph, it will give a further response to your delete vote as again, my point is proven by people judging the article by its past. George (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.