Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiaraakitty


 * 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 and salt. BD2412 T 00:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Kiaraakitty

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Twitch streamer that doen't seem notable, except due to controversy surrounding her banning from Twitch, which has been removed since -- Luk  talk 14:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --  Luk  talk 14:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep easily passes WP:GNG considering the breadth of sources (online and offline) in both English and Chinese. Please consider the sources presented in the article prior to its vandalism (which occurs in exactly the diff you cite). ps would not be surprised if this editor/2401:7400:4006:A24:A555:6B8F:6EB8:D1C4, whose only edits have been to whitewash the page, were the subject herself. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree there, she seems notable only because of this one event, and besides that she does not seem to meet other notability criterion. Most coverage I found (in English) was only related to the harrassment charges/denials, and not from very reputable sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and I don't think covering this while the controversy is ongoing is useful. See Biographies_of_living_persons. -- Luk  talk 16:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are multiple Chinese-language biographies of her dating back to years ago, including one cited in the article from Shin Min Daily News. I could email you the pdfs if you'd like. ps "don't think covering this while the controversy is ongoing is useful" certainly isn't a valid ground for deletion.... Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind WP:BIAS, I urge future commenters to please consider both offline and foreign-language sources. Dexerto is pretty authoritative also for streamer-related news. Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Even considering the removed text. The article looked more like a collection of news and allegations rather than a biography. – robertsky (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cleanup (the article looked more like a collection of allegations) is not a reason for deletion. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , without the collection of allegations and news, there is nothing to sustain the notability of the subject. – robertsky (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree but of course you're entitled to your !vote though I urge you to reconsider. I'll also note that some subjects can become notable just based on a "collection of allegations and news", notwithstanding BLP1E of course. Also I've been editing for close to 10 years (both on ip and this account) so there's no need to hyperlink GNG and whatevs... It's rather condescending imo Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's a raging edit war currently but, at this stage, the article is approaching a speedy delete candidate under G10 as a wholly attack page. From her origins at her father's "failed" business, to the comments that she is a game streamer who does not stream games, it seems like just one disparaging BLP. I endorse User:Robertsky's opinion that the article would fail notability without all the allegations of fraud, which would then lead the article to fail WP:BIO1E as well. Ifnord (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A failed business is a failed business, I don't see how that's subjective. I tried to find some positive reception to counterbalance the seemingly disparaging comments, but couldn't find any. Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are multiple foreign-language sources some of which date back to 2017 and have been cited here, including an in-depth report on her streaming career in Shin Min Daily News. It's unfortunate that her alleged misdeeds have received more attention in the media, but I can only write based on what I have, it is not my intention to create a "wholly attack page" -- I'm just reflecting the state of the sources. Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt: The notabilty tag has been on the page twice, once by another reviewer and then, this reviewer. Each time, the page author has removed the tag. Upon examination of ALL references - yes, watching all the videos - a self-published tag was added to the page, and a link to WP:USERGENERATED was given. To wit, the page author removed, and wrote, Majority of sources are NOT user-generated. Prove it.  You may examine the page author's talk page, wherein it is stated - inter alia - No, especially not "i.e., by the subject". I think I've written enuf to know what passes muster and what doesn't. . WP:BLP1E applies. On NPP, I translate everything, Persian, Albanian, Chinese. I was told so what over translation I could not access. There has been edit-warring (possibly the subject)  so recommend delete and salting. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's circle back to your original statement "Reference 2 goes to the Wikipedia article for Shin Min Daily News and not to the article in Chinese. Reference 11 (in Chinese) will not translate. Marjority [sic] of the sources are user generated (i.e., by the subject) or primary sources. We need totally independent assessments of this Twitch Streamer / Youtuber and her works. Thank you." Ref 2 is offline (I can email you the PDF if you want). Ref 11--SO WHAT? (Are foreign-language sources only admissible if they can be translated??! Anyhow I'm pretty sure you could just Google Translate it if you really wanted, but c'mon, to demand translation as a criterion of admissibility really reeks of systemic bias. The majority of the sources are NOT user-generated, I don't know why you keep asserting that, unless the Dexerto articles aren't totally independent assessments to you?! They surely weren't written by the subject herself. Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Out of 15 sources, perhaps 3 are User-generated. That's not a "majority" Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the arguments above. I don't think a few minor controversies is enough for notability. Hydrogenation (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Too many trivial sources, but nothing conferring WP:N. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Just too many non-reliable and insignificant sources which doesn't translate to notability, and not enough reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2021 (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.