Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizzy


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There is a clear consensus to delete here. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Mizzy

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

Subject fails WP:BLP1E. The article lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and is based on a flurry of coverage in the news cycle; almost all of it WP:TABLOID type sensational press. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Additionally, the article has been heavily edited by either the subject or those connected to the subject and WP:COI editing to the article and the use of the page promote the subject is concerning. (see article edit history) 4meter4 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. (as article creator) . Page does seem to be a magnet for both WP:IDONTLIKE and COI edits, but neither are a reason to delete (hints of WP:ATD). The significant coverage in reliable sources is clear and the subject passes WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE search would indicate significant coverage in BBC News as recently as yesterday, so I disagree there is a "flurry" of coverage, coverage is very much ongoing. I watch the article carefully and have removed any tabloid stuff (there is plenty). Notability is establised by non tabloid press such as BBC News, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Spectator and more, that high quality sourcing is already in the article.
 * Considering WP:NOTNEWS, which is policy and has four reasons to delete. 1 - original reporting. Nope, this is all sourced. 2 Routine coverage, also nope, the subject making headlines, the coverage is not routine, as per our definition. 3 - Who's Who which excludes people for one event and such like, this guy is notable for lots of events, 4 - Gossip and diary stuff, there is high quality reporting and analysis about the subject. Any careful reading of the policy would not support deletion.
 * WP:BLP1E is absolutely not met. All three criteria would need to be met, and I doubt any are. Aside from the fact that the subject is notable for multiple (similar, but that doesn't matter) events, he is absolutely not a low profile individual, thus failing criterion 2 of WP:BLP1E. (See WP:NOTBLP1E for more)
 * None of this matters less than the key thing: WP:GNG - which is met. Thinking of WP:THREE here's three sources that should make that utterly clear:
 * https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/06/disturbing-rise-mizzy-tiktok-culture
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-65700125
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/talktv-andre-walker-mizzy-b2351193.html
 * Of course, none of these paint the guy in a good light, but that's besides the point. He is exceptionally notable. With BBC coverage as recent as yesterday, we should not WP:RUSHDELETE CT55555 (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Entertainment, Internet,  and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CT55555 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC) Also posted notification here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture CT55555 (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is largely a negative portrayal of him, for doing "things" and getting in trouble with the law over these "things" he did. I wouldn't say that satisfied BLPCRIME, rest of his career seems not notable. It comes down to "guy does stupid stuff online and gets arrested, banned from social media". Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Family life is a small section, then the next section, then a looooong list of stuff he did and got arrested for. Being stupid online doesn't really make him notable. Could be seen as an attempt to shame the individual or as an attack page. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete While Oaktree has mentioned that the page is largely a negative portrayal of him, edit history shows this page as being in a constant edit war, including from Mizzy himself along with several sockpuppet accounts of his friends, constantly trying to add pages for his friends and even add advertisements for Mizzy's spotify and t-shirt websites. Mizzy is clearly aware of the negative image he has online, but is using this wikipedia article solely as a purpose to gain further online presence. In reality, he is not notable. Tiktok users such as Pinkydoll are much more notable online, and even their pages are being discussed for deletion. Having random articles about your arrest don't make you notable. Matan Even, the "Bill Clinton" game awards crasher, has several articles written about him, including several from this week alone, and he doesn't have a wikipedia page either. Don't let Mizzy just get away with using wikipedia for free ads. 2600:1700:89C6:2000:84CE:DEC9:9C9D:8543 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC) — User:2600:1700:89C6:2000:84CE:DEC9:9C9D:8543 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep No shortage of articles regarding this internet personality - from The Guardian to The Independent to the BBC to, yes, The Daily Mail. Current delete votes seem to be factoring in quality of the page (or the individual the article is on) rather than determining notability. As in, simply because a youtuber is famous for "doing things and getting arrested", that does not discount valid coverage of them. Essentially, we can not use personal judgements regarding if coverage is about 'important stuff' or not (certainly many academic fields lack in practical importance, but there's no shortage of articles regarding fairly minor mathematicians and philosophers). The page is undoubtedly a bit of a mess, but that is also not grounds for deletion in any way. Page should likely be trimmed and potentially protected in order to prevent further abuse by both fans and opponents of this youtuber. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @ You have not addressed the policy issues raised in the nomination which are WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:SUSTAINED. It is not enough to show significant coverage of a BLP when that coverage falls within the same limited time frame and covers the same singular topic. Lasting notability is demonstrated by the subject being known for more than one notable event, and having coverage across time. Having many sources covering the same single topic in a one month time frame does not show sustained coverage and runs afoul of three policies named above. The sourcing is not sufficient to pass our notability policies in relation to WP:Biographies of Living People which are more stringent that GNG.4meter4 (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I mentioned above the BBC News coverage yesterday. Please also note coverage in Ireland last week and in Wales, yesterday
 * I find the suggestion that coverage all happened in one month, and that it was all related to one event, odd. Coverage is ongoing, spans many months and several events. CT55555 (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think either 1E applies here but primary and routine coverage are explicitly excluded from establishing notability, regardless of whether they're independent or reliable. All of the coverage you've linked to far is both.. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please say more about how you think Jason Okundaye's analysis in The Guardian, the BBC News reporting and the piece in The Independent are primary sources and routine?
 * WP:ROUTINE is defined as such things as announcements...Planned coverage of scheduled events...Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions...sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc.
 * I ask, because I feel confident you are mistaken on both counts. CT55555 (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no analysis at all, so I can't say anything about the analysis. As for routineness, click the wikilink that says "Per Wikipedia policy". The relevant part is For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion. PST of OR links to the essay Identifying and using primary sources, which has the section "Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources?" Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC) corrected typo 04:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Though reading that bit again, it does seem to cover crime logs as well, cf also WP:CRIME and the nearby section, WP:NCRIME. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know what the various acronyms you are using mean ("PST", "OS", "cf") so that is somewhat hindering my ability to understand you here.
 * I think most people understand crime logs to be daily reports from police stations or or police forces with basic details of crimes. I think they are list or database entries with brief details. This is significantly and materially different from in depth reporting about single examples of alleged criminality in reliable and independent sources.
 * WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay that argues that breaking news should be considered "primary" and notes "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad". Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources." I don't consider this essay to be aligned with common consensus at AFD discussions where independent sources like BBC News, The Guardian etc tend to be viewed as optimal sources. Nonetheless, it seems like a moot point when even the essay does't argue against using such sources. Even still, The Guardian piece is not a breaking news story, but a piece of analysis. If we were to discount most news sources on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia would be a radically different from how it actually is.
 * WP:CRIME directs us away from creating articles about people accused of crimes if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.. There isn't. If anyone thinks any aspect of WP:CRIME is not met by the article, I think that they should improve the article, not argue to delete it, and I think that is supported by policy: WP:ATD. CT55555 (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * CT55555, sorry about the typo, it was late yesterday for me which is also why I did not do a full source review of my own. I have now corrected it. PST is a section of OR, and while primary sources can often in fact be the best sources for the facts, they are not appropriate for establishing notability. Both GNG and BASIC exclude primary sources for this purpose. Additionally, it seems fairly straightforward that news without analysis, that simply state what has happened, would be considered a primary source. While not explicitly defined so by OR, it is mentioned in many of its citations. However, if you want to dispute this interpretation I'm happy to take this to either a relevant noticeboard (probably RSN, as the RS guideline also touchs on the topic in NEWSORG, again, not explicitly stating it) or a RFC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @4meter4 I'm just kind of having a difficult time discerning how your argument fits into the policy links. This is not like local news or a tabloid, these are large articles from major websites discussing the individual, their backstory, and their cultural impact. To ask for verifiable articles suggesting notability, be confronted with three very solid articles from @CT55555, along with articles regarding the individual over the course of a year - and then say "Well, not those.".... I'm just not quite sure what would satisfy your criteria or why the bar would be set so high for this article in particular. These sources alone confer more verifiable notability than, I'm going to say conservatively, 90% of biographical pages on Wikipedia. I'm not even sure what the "singular topic" being covered here is, as there's a laundry list of items in this page. The break in? The Piers Morgan interview? "His content" as a whole?
 * I don't want to come off as harsh, but I'm having a hard time understanding the general 'pitch' of this AfD. A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @ Please see 's comment below this. She did a better job at highlighting the relevant BLP policies than my initial nomination, and it expresses the concerns more concretely than what I was able to achieve. There is a certain threshold for when BLPs involving criminal activity become encyclopedic, and this hasn't reached that point. The coverage is entirely sensational and essentially WP:TABLOID press; even if found in normally reputable sources. This is a routine news cycle for sensational stories of this kind as not enough time has passed to indicate notability. We would need to see SUSTAINED covered (i.e a year or longer) that is not superficial (and these are) with neutral reporting (which these are not) that isn't sensational and designed to be click bait. When normally reputable media start publishing and behaving like disreputable media that is exactly when we need to crack the whip and enforce our BLP policy language and use good editorial judgement. A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @4meter4 I'm sorry my friend, but saying that coverage from legitimate sources, with legitimate subject matters that explore the subject in depth like The Guardian's "The disturbing rise of Mizzy: this is what happens when culture values nothing but attention" - as well as a smattering of other sources, are not something I am willing to write off or even consider for a moment as "essentially Tabloid press... even if found in normally reputable sources". I'm not really sure how I would come to that. The shoe simply doesn't fit. This is not celebrity gossip, there is no gossip occurring here. Setting arbitrary boundaries that happen to be right outside what the individual of this article possesses come off asinine and just kind of like trying to do acrobatics in order to justify the AfD rather than it being abundantly clear deletion is warrented ("Oh well sure coverage lasts for about a year... but I'd like to see it last for a year or longer..." "Sure he has 3 or 4 good articles from reputable sources but... what if they were more reputable? I'm not actually going to count a few of them this time. Could we get 6 or 7?"). I'm poking some fun at you here which I hope you don't mind, but you can see my point. Beccanyr's main concerns seems to be that this article is some hit piece on the subject - but that doesn't come across to me and overwhelmingly the page and citations within it are just providing raw facts about the individual who in this case is primarily known for notoriety gaining acts. In summary, once we start to say "Oh the BBC is a source.. until I don't like it, in which case it's a sensationalist tabloid" we might as well bin the website. Again, I apologize for any harshness but I have yet to see what I consider a solid argument for deletion and remain rather immutable here. Cheers either way. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My concerns are policy-based, including as broadly stated in the introduction section of the biographies of living persons policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.And this article, about an 18-year-old now banned from YouTube and TikTok, appears to have been built from a few WP:RSOPINION sources ("considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact"), such as The Guardian opinion about culture, an LBC source describing the subject as "Mizzy, the TikTok tearaway who has scandalised many viewers", various reports of allegations and court proceedings, and limited coverage of the subject appearing on Piers Morgan Uncensored and getting 'screamed at' on a TalkTV show. And the coverage is not WP:SUSTAINED - sources in the article and this discussion date from May 2023, although I was able to find February 2023 coverage of an arrest, with July follow up ; and brief January 2023 coverage  - so we appear to have less than a year's worth of coverage, a social media career (and related notoriety) now seemingly quite limited by various bans, and what appear to be low-level pending criminal charges that are not generating extensive or in-depth coverage.Overall though, I am not saying "Sure he has 3 or 4 good articles from reputable sources but...", I am noting that in addition to the WP:BLP policy reasons for deletion, the notability guideline also outlines guidance for us to consider, even though a topic is the subject of news coverage and some commentary, and specifically when articles should be excluded as not encyclopedic. Beccaynr (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I said already, but with regards to if the coverage is sustained, there was BBC coverage six days ago. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66607521.
 * I find the reference to opinion pieces difficult. In other discussions people argue to delete when there is purely news coverage, saying that if there was analysis they would !vote to keep. And here we have analysis. I see pieces like the guardian as a good indicator of notability.
 * I agree that wikipedia is not a tabloid. I see how LBC is borderline, but the article is written from reliable sources and I don't see this article as spreading "titillating claims about people's lives". (emphasis on claims mine) instead it is doing what wikipedia should do, relaying neutrally facts reported in BBC News etc. I don't think this is titillating, I don't think the sources are tabloid (1 source, LBC maybe), I don't think the content is about "claims". CT55555 (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * From my view, available coverage does not establish a notable social media career for O'Garro before or independently of the pending allegations of criminal conduct and various related court proceedings, including some based on what appears to be a 2022 juvenile court proceeding, which is also publicized in this article. And now, due to various social media bans, to the extent there is coverage, it appears focused on e.g. brief round-ups of low-level criminal allegations such as the BBC report linked above.O'Garro appears to have primarily had a brief burst of sensationalized attention from e.g. Piers Morgan; the article also includes what may be a WP:COATRACK about the BBC being criticized for what the article describes as "interviewing O'Garro to boost view numbers" (aka sensationalism); O'Garro getting 'screamed at' on TalkTV in June ; the article also suggests an opinion piece from The Spectator   "praised" O'Garro, but it actually includes: "He does not deserve to become rich and famous off the back of his appalling conduct but his 15 minutes of fame should remind us that we are a long way as a society from harnessing the potential of all our citizens. He must do better but we can do better too."So for this article, for this subject, notability does not appear supported by reports of allegations and criminal proceedings, two thinkpieces about culture and society, and three interviews, including one criticized for apparent sensationalism, another by Piers Morgan, and one where O'Garro is, according to the article, told by the interviewer, "You glared at her in a threatening fashion. You do that again, I'll drag you out by the hair." What appears to be missing are sources that permit the development of an encyclopedic article that is compliant with the letter and spirit (to borrow a phrase from Alexandermcnabb) of BLP policy; and whether according to NOTNEWS, NOTSCANDAL, or NOTPROMO, the short burst of attention, the basis for that attention, and the nature of the coverage further appears to support deletion at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - reasons for deletion according to deletion policy appear to include a breach of the biographies of living persons policy and WP:NOT policy. The notability guideline has two prongs, such that an article can be asserted to be presumptively notable according to GNG but still excluded according to the What Wikipedia is not policy. This article began on 26 May 2023 with a collection of opinion sources and news reports about allegations, but making apparent factual assertions of what can be commonly understood as criminal activity. Based on a recent source cited in this discussion (BBC), this subject is 18 years old, and the brief BBC report outlines a series of allegations. The current article  continues to state the subject has engaged in "illegal activities such as trespassing", and appears to source at least some of this to a non-RS WP:FORBESCON source . The recent Irish Times interview-based coverage reviews what I think can be understood in Wikipedia policy terms as 'sensationalism' surrounding the subject, which is separate from simply being published in tabloid press - the WP:SENSATIONAL section in the event guideline appears to recognize that even reputable press can sensationalize subjects, and as an encyclopedia, we can strive to do better. From my view, beyond the WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE concerns based on the available coverage that appears to irreparably slant this article to negative coverage of allegations of criminal conduct and sensationalism, this article also seems contrary to the WP:NOTSCANDAL section of WP:NOT - this policy section includes, "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person," and it does not seem possible to develop a neutral and balanced article based on reliable sources at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was able to review the sources fully and thought there might have been some secondary coverage in the articles written about the interview, but it seems like they too merely restate what has happened. Not able to find any better sources than what has already been posted. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * delete it 2.27.242.224 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems like this article is just a list of arrests and court appearances. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * MOtivated by your comment, I have make edits so that the article is organised thematically: family life, social media activities, legal issues, media appearances and critical reception. CT55555 (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete TikTok gone mad. Young man behaves unpleasantly, discovers that notoriety≠impunity. Story ends. Per some sound arguments already made above (Notably that of Beccaynr), does not meet the letter or spirit of an encyclopaedic article. Yes, national media coverage would appear to meet the bar of WP:GNG, but in this case I believe WP:NOT trumps that - and in particular WP:PROMO. And please don't tell me that he'll pass WP:SUSTAINED if he does something else unpleasant and/or anti-social. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:PROMO do you think is not met? I'd much rather we improved this article rather than delete it (WP:ATD). Regarding sustained, did not notice the coverage of him in BBC News 6 days ago? That seems like sustained coverage to me, what more do you seek other than ongoing coverage to meet WP:SUSTAINED? CT55555 (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd perhaps consider laying down your keyboard now and letting the discussion go 'free' for a while... Sustained as in something beyond being a minor and transient public nuisance with a desperate appetite for self promotion (WP:PROMO). Being antisocial and unpleasant (for no cause other than garnering online attention) is, last time I looked, not itself something that creates an enduring impact on the arts, society, communities, engineering, research, human development or in fact anything else that would confer notability on someone other than some passing, perhaps prurient, press. Oops, alliteration. We don't generally confer notability on YouTubers, I'm not sure why we'd do so for one who intentionally breaks the law to get attention - even where coverage, fleetingly, results. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:GNG via WP:BLP1E. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You think Mizzy, the social media influencer, is a low profile individual (criterion 2)? I can't tell if you are making an incredible argument, or have not read WP:BLP1E CT55555 (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think Mizzy is a low profile individual and likely to remain so. Having a brief period of fame for low level crime stunts does not indicate lasting notability on wikipedia or longterm significance (ie "high profile" attention) in the real world. I very much doubt the world will be paying attention after these criminal charges have worked there way through the court system, and its likely he will go into obscurity.4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:LOWPROFILE is only an essay, but it is widely used at AFD to help us decide if someone is high or low profile. People who take part in media interviews, self-publicity are never considered low-profile in my experience at AFD.
 * WP:NOTTEMPORARY is a part of a guideline and is clear: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. CT55555 (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this user is low-profile and has no lasting notability except from a few random stunts. This does not meet BLPCRIME and therefore should be delete &mdash; Karnataka  talk  21:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly you have not participated in many BLP1E discussions at AFD. Metaphorically, read the temperature of the room. I think you will find that at AFD we do require longterm coverage of BLPs when evaluating BLP1E particularly in relation to crime; see WP:CRIME where it clearly states under our policy for perpetrators: "Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. It's a standard measuring stick and this is policy; not an essay.4meter4 (talk)

Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. I originally closed this discussion as "Delete" but it was brought to my attention that I made a talk page remark back in May about this article subject that shows a lack of neutrality on my part. I had forgotten about my remarks but agree that I should revert my closure and allow an uninvolved closer to review this discussion. My apologies. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:CRIME and more generally, WP:BLP. But also, just a clarifying point, WP:BLP1E specifically does not apply here, subjects must meet all 3 criteria, and this subject does not meet If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.. I appreciate the folks trying to improve the article from a valid BIO/BIO1E perspective, but I think BLP and CRIME override that here. &mdash;siro&chi;o 03:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Unlike someone like Akinwale Arobieke, who has received coverage spanning many years, there's no evidence that this individual is going to be long-term notable beyond the initial news cycle, which has only lasted a few months, failing WP:SUSTAINED. I also agree with the WP:BLPCRIME concerns above. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Also a notification was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject TikTok <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(45deg,Red,Orange,Yellow,Green,Blue,Purple);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know there was an 'Article Rescue Squadron', and have never seen these fell spirits invoked in an AfD before. Interesting magic... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a WikiProject that I am part of. A collaboration of editors who work to improve articles, especially useful for finding sources on difficult topics. I like the magic analogy. :-) <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(45deg,Red,Orange,Yellow,Green,Blue,Purple);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Article Rescue Squad AWAY! I've not heard of this outfit either! Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please consider following the rescue list or joining the WikiProject WP:RESCUE, if you have an interest in article improvement. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(45deg,Red,Orange,Yellow,Green,Blue,Purple);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see also that it was brought up (specifically re. the Guardian article) that opinion coverage also interprets the base facts as we would expect analytical reporting to do, so this is a belated response to A MINOTAUR (and, of course, the later comment from CT55555 as well). WP:RSOPINION and the footnote in WP:OR that defines as primary op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces draw a distinction that is not immediately straightforward or obvious. It doesn't help either, that what scholarship on the topic (for example ) often take the distinction as a given without clearly explaining how to distinguish between the two. I'm sure I'm not the best person to explain this, but while opinions are actually in fact secondary to the facts, at the same time the are not reliable as an objective view of the facts. We cannot use statements of opinion as secondary statements, we can only use them as a source on the subjective views of whoever wrote or said that opinion. It's the same as Morgan's "an idiot" and "product of his upbringing". There are ways for analysis to produce statements with similar meaning, for example if a journalist goes and talks to some psychologists or reviews primary research on the topic, but opinion coverage and incidental statements of opinion are not held to such standards in news publishing. I'm not sure I can explain this any better, but there is quite a bit about this in the archives of WT:RS and WT:OR, as well as in RS themselves, most commonly news organisations. It won't provide a 100% clear line, because there is no such clear line, but I hope it'll help when thinking about the difference. Opnion pieces are of course, not excluded under WP:NOTNEWS but WP:NOTOPINION. (and I agree that the mentions of 1E are kinda terrible and serve more to confuse the issue) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:SUSTAINED and is still notable today. Too early to consider deletion Nzs9 (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you can state that...? The consensus above is that the subject does not pass SUSTAINED which is a policy that requires "longterm coverage" (ie coverage across time). That hasn't been demonstrated with this subject and the RS evidence which is all from a very short window of time.4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete He was in the news for a few weeks and yes he got a TV interview out of it, but when you move away the media coverage of that time, he will be considered just another attention seeking social media personality who just happened to use crime for "clout". I see a case for a deletion on WP:1E grounds but he certainly fails WP:CRIME criteria.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 15:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sustained coverage for a period of months in practically all of the highest profile UK news publications is, in my experience, sufficient to get over WP:NSUSTAINED. This wasn't a single event; it's multiple events, so BLP1E doesn't apply. This is someone actively seeking public attention, so the "low-profile"/"private person" elements of BLP don't apply. Just seems like a straightforward WP:BIO pass. And who can resist a story of someone who harasses people for money and clout getting into trouble? Seems like there's the possibility of a merge target for a list of internet pranksters, list of internet pranksters who have gotten into trouble, or an article on the sublime schadenfreude of watching internet pranksters struggle. Ultimately commenting rather than a keep !vote because despite all this, the spirit of BLP gives me pause: should an obnoxious kid's obnoxiousness be fixed in the public record forever? I don't know. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm worried about. I mean he did silly stuff now, this could be used to debase him when he moves on and gets a career and family and stuff, later in life. Say he runs for office, then they trot out the negative wikipedia article showing how "unusual" he was in his youth. Notability for being stupid online isn't really notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep He has received significant coverage from reliable sources, so meets the general notability deadlines. Some of the coverage is from events over a year apart.  This isn't just a single event.   D r e a m Focus  03:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * These sources don't meet the standard at WP:CRIME as they are all contemporaneous new accounts, and are therefore not sufficient to pass WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLPCRIME policies. GNG is not the only relevant (nor most significant) policy argument here as the policy standard for WP:BLPs in relation to crime is more stringent than GNG under other policy guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 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 talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.