Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9 (2nd nomination)

9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a plainly crufty and publicity-seeking article for a random, low-profile redditor who was never notable, and certainly hasn't been even plausibly relevant in at least eight years. See the Google Trends for this user: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=_9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9&hl=en

Even when this user was receiving a bit of attention from blogs, their notability was highly questionable, and now - years on - it seems to me patently ludicrous that this, frankly, nobody warrants an encyclopedic entry. The tone of the copy is also the sort of overwrought interest common to writers trying to puff themselves (or their friends) up.

On a personal level, I can think of a dozen amateur fiction and fanfiction writers with greater impact than this user, and I wouldn't say they're notable either. Yes yes, Other things exist, but I'm really shocked this highly unserious bio withstood an AfD the first time around. Garnet Moss (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Articles about Redditors require enough citations to garner notability. It would be worth movable to a Fandom wiki, however it cannot mix with CC-BY-SA 3.0 text, it should have been rewritten. Withdrawn. Keep as it has enough coverage of the subject. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep you didn't really provide any good reasons for deleting this article other than you considering him an non-notable nobody, but that's not how it goes. Notability is not based on personal opinion, it's based on if the person was covered by major notable reliable sources, which this person was. Bonus Person (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A forum fiction writer getting some blog press does not a notable entry make. There’s no way in hell this user passes the (admittedly non-binding) ten-year rule, and the whole page reeks of recentism and publicity-seeking. Without resorting to vulgar comparison-shopping, if every topic which merited a Gizmodo or Verge article was considered notable, the landscape of Wikipedia would look very different. This is not an encyclopedic article. Garnet Moss (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure calling The Guardian, Inverse, Vice, or The Verge "blogs" is a very strong argument. Also not sure recentism really applies when The Guardian article was written 8 (nearly 10!) years ago.  C F A   💬  02:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The publicity policy you linked says:
 * "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."
 * Sources like The Guardian and BBC News are independent and reliable, they aren't just random crufty press blogs. Obviously this article would encourage people to read the stories, but that alone does not make it publicity.
 * The recentism page also says "Similarly, a person who receives a temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event is not necessarily an appropriate topic for a standalone biographical article, if their notability claim is not likely to still be of sustained public interest in the next few decades."
 * This is not about an event or incident, the page is talking about published stories. People in 10 years will know that this is talking about a horror writer, even if they don't know what Reddit is. Bonus Person (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: Meets GNG. See this story in The Guardian, this article (and this one) in Inverse, this article in Vice, this article in the BBC, this article in The Verge, and this story by Gizmodo.  C F A   💬  02:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of creepypastas or Reddit? The current title is virtually un-navigable and should instead describe the "author's work". IgelRM (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment tempted to vote delete WP:IAR. A weird-Reddit commenter doesn't become notable just because he has friends who are lazy journalists (and when there is a piece in The Verge about somebody who started posting weird comments 1 day ago, it is safe to assume there is a pre-existing relationship).  There is no claim of sustained coverage.  Unless there are sources from after 2016, this should probably be deleted, appeals to GNG be damned. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A strange argument, but there is coverage after 2016 if that's what you're looking for:
 * I have yet to see a reasonable reason to delete.  C F A   💬  03:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, that was the "sustained" coverage I was looking for to show this was something other than a forgotten publicity stunt. Keep. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If we're talking IAR, sure, let's talk principles. How would deleting this article benefit the encyclopedia? We have enough information to write about, and the subject is a great example of internet phenomena and life in the modern age. Assuming that there's nepotism going on here also doesn't seem very good faith of you (remember, AGF applies to all people, not just editors). Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Welp, . Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per CFA. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep the sources that covered this subject suggests bare notability. Plutocow (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If we're talking IAR, sure, let's talk principles. How would deleting this article benefit the encyclopedia? We have enough information to write about, and the subject is a great example of internet phenomena and life in the modern age. Assuming that there's nepotism going on here also doesn't seem very good faith of you (remember, AGF applies to all people, not just editors). Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Welp, . Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per CFA. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep the sources that covered this subject suggests bare notability. Plutocow (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep I think it should stay because this article has a unique and important part of internet culture with a lot of coverage from trustworthy sources. Removing it would mean losing valuable information about a notable and interesting online event. Yakov-kobi (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)