Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeepFuckingValue: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
N7ee (talk | contribs)
Line 46: Line 46:
*::::Keep the article as is, just at a different title. This is what I mean. Sorry for the confusion.[[User:Newslack|Newslack]] ([[User talk:Newslack|talk]]) 04:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*::::Keep the article as is, just at a different title. This is what I mean. Sorry for the confusion.[[User:Newslack|Newslack]] ([[User talk:Newslack|talk]]) 04:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::::{{ping|Newslack}} No worries! I just wanted to clarify as, typically, when "redirect" is suggested in an AfD discussion, it is intended that the content of the article be replaced with a redirect without being moved elsewhere. Provided it's okay with you, I'll strike out the bolded part of your original comment to make your intent clear to the person closing this discussion. If you want your voice heard on the issue of changing the article title, though, I would strongly recommend you leave a note at {{section link|Talk:DeepFuckingValue|Requested move 2 February 2021}}. [[Special:Contributions/207.161.86.162|207.161.86.162]] ([[User talk:207.161.86.162|talk]]) 05:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::::{{ping|Newslack}} No worries! I just wanted to clarify as, typically, when "redirect" is suggested in an AfD discussion, it is intended that the content of the article be replaced with a redirect without being moved elsewhere. Provided it's okay with you, I'll strike out the bolded part of your original comment to make your intent clear to the person closing this discussion. If you want your voice heard on the issue of changing the article title, though, I would strongly recommend you leave a note at {{section link|Talk:DeepFuckingValue|Requested move 2 February 2021}}. [[Special:Contributions/207.161.86.162|207.161.86.162]] ([[User talk:207.161.86.162|talk]]) 05:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. History is in the making, this individual is about to testify in Congress as he is a significant person of interest, that alone is good reason to keep this as a separate article.[[User:N7ee|N7ee]] ([[User talk:N7ee|talk]]) 05:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:04, 4 February 2021

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]