Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Jaystation controversy


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

2020 Jaystation controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS Meatsgains (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete not sure where this belongs like a merge/redirect. But it does not merit an encyclopedia article. Not a good argument for AfD but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lightburst (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. An incident with no lasting repercussions. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as G7, see comment below. (Original justification: incident with no evidence of any lasting notability. As referenced above, no obvious target for a merge or redirect). Hugsyrup 10:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Having seen the comments below, I would argue for a speedy delete as G7. The only substantive edits have been made by the original editor, everything else has been nominating for deletion or doing automated cleanup. There is absolutely no reason to play the process out here at AFD. Hugsyrup 08:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Jaystation has done a lot of stunts similar to this, there isn't any reason to keep it. Ccccchaton000 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even the article creator tried to G7 speedy delete the page, which I assume was reverted because they did so incorrectly (they blanked a page which already had an active AfD notice). Just noting that the article creator appears to support deletion. This isn't notable and I doubt anyone will argue it is. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just delete my page already. From Florence Hansen (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Florence Hansen
 * Comment: Unfortunately that isn’t quite how this works. I’d ask you to read WP:OWNERSHIP, so you understand you do not "own" Wikipedia pages, even if you created them. It's looking very likely there will be consensus to delete this page, but you should not expect to create and delete pages at will. Once you create it a page here, it's not just "your" page anymore. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete This is absolutely WP:NOTNEWS, we have an article for neither of them, and the sources (including one with a direct link to the subject's YouTube page, which violates every basic journalistic standard) are junk.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2020 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.