Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeepFuckingValue: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
m The result was The result was!
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''keep'''. There is general consensus to retain the article. Although some participants who favoured deletion invoked [[WP:BLP1E]], most other commentators felt that it did not apply in this instance to the extent of meriting deletion. Note also that a [[Talk:Keith_Gill_(investor)#Requested_move_2_February_2021|concurrent move request]] ended up with the article having been moved to the subject's real name: [[Keith Gill (investor)]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
===[[:DeepFuckingValue]]===
===[[:DeepFuckingValue]]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}


<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
Line 64: Line 70:
*'''Keep''' per {{u|Elliot321}}'s clear reasoning on the application of [[WP:BLP1E]] (3 cumulative conditions, only 1 is met) [[User:Alalch Emis|— Alalch Emis]] ([[User talk:Alalch Emis|talk]]) 13:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per {{u|Elliot321}}'s clear reasoning on the application of [[WP:BLP1E]] (3 cumulative conditions, only 1 is met) [[User:Alalch Emis|— Alalch Emis]] ([[User talk:Alalch Emis|talk]]) 13:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Man, whenever a new article is created or someone gains fame out of nowhere, there's always at least one person that's just about ready to be like '''Oh mY gOd ! nOmInatIoN FOr dElEtIon!!?/1/''' yeah, calm down buddy. This doesn't need to be deleted, here: [[WP:BLP1E]] [[User:SilentRevisions|SilentRevisions]] ([[User talk:SilentRevisions|talk]]) 13:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Man, whenever a new article is created or someone gains fame out of nowhere, there's always at least one person that's just about ready to be like '''Oh mY gOd ! nOmInatIoN FOr dElEtIon!!?/1/''' yeah, calm down buddy. This doesn't need to be deleted, here: [[WP:BLP1E]] [[User:SilentRevisions|SilentRevisions]] ([[User talk:SilentRevisions|talk]]) 13:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Only meets one condition of [[WP:BLP1E]], Gill seems likely to maintain his notoriety having stated in the past he wishes to continue posting to YouTube, his appearance in congress, and [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/feb/01/rival-gamestop-movies-being-rushed-into-production films already being proposed on the GameStop situation.] Many already view Gill as a notable value investor. [[User:Applepinepotato|Applepinepotato]] ([[User talk:Applepinepotato|talk]]) 14:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 15:51, 10 February 2021

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. There is general consensus to retain the article. Although some participants who favoured deletion invoked WP:BLP1E, most other commentators felt that it did not apply in this instance to the extent of meriting deletion. Note also that a concurrent move request ended up with the article having been moved to the subject's real name: Keith Gill (investor). El_C 15:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeepFuckingValue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is a living person known primarily for a single event, the GameStop short squeeze. WP:BLP1E applies. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - WP:BLP1E does not apply since points 2 and 3 are not met. Their role in the event is very well-documented, and they are not likely to remain low-profile otherwise. Per WP:LOWPROFILE, "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." DeepFuckingValue sought out interviews with media, making them fail this criteria and BLP1E. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's enough info here that it makes sense to split it off from the main article. It could be merged, but that wouldn't be ideal. It's more than just a passing mention. Benjamin (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - #3 "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Event is significant and the individual's role is substantial and well-documented. UserTwoSix (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Elliot, seems to satisfy WP:BLP and WP:GNG as this person has seen much media coverage. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Reuters doxxed someone, and then everyone else wrote about the doxxing. 64.246.153.97 (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2021 (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.