Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Suicide Story


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 08:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

My Suicide Story

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable web series, has never received any meaningful coverage and the few RS in the article are hyper local, the rest are spammy black-hat SEO pay-for-publishing and thus unreliable. Praxidicae (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This series is notable and has received coverage from multiple news outlets and has also been reviewed. You just nominated 2 of my pages for deletion, 1 for speedy deletion, which should at least be put to a vote. It seems there may be a bias here Hidden Hills Editor (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am bias against black hat SEO pay for publishing sites, yes and the reason why I came across this was due to the fact that the article contains four of them. Not a single one of these provide the type of in-depth coverage that is needed, 2 are hyper local and the rest are just outright unreliable. Praxidicae (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's be honest here. The reason you came across this page was because after you nominated John Romaniello for speedy deletion - which should have been put up to a vote to let the Wikipedia community decide - you apparently searched through my history to find any related articles. There is more to this than being against "black hat SEO sites" you seem to have a personal bias against this person and are attempting to have this article removed due to its relation to said subject after it was already reviewed by a new page reviewer. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC) {{
 * Comment on content not contributors. I have done nothing of the sort and I fail to see how one is related to the other. I came across the other article while doing NPP and came across this whilst searching from sources here. You're welcome to add more sources to dispute the deletion but you need to provide reliable sources that have a history of editorial oversight and fact checking. Those included on this article fail that criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The two articles are related as the subject, John Romaniello, was featured in the 5th episode of this series. I am well aware of the nature of how to support my arguments here, and I am not "commenting on contributors" as opposed to content, I am simply acknowledging the fact that you nominated this page for deletion immediately after nominating John Romaniello for an unfair speedy deletion. Seems fishy that you failed to recognize that he was featured in the series and deleted this specific page out of all the others that I created. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is that you should be commenting on the content and providing the reliable sources you claim exist rather than commenting on what you think is my motive. Also WP:SIGN your edits. Praxidicae (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And the fact that it was reviewed by another reviewer is irrelevant, it doesn't mean it's exempt from AFD and it also begs the question whether they did any critical evaluation of the sources, but again, not relevant what happened previously. The only thing that matters at AFD is discussing the notability of a subject and whether reliable sources exist. In this case, they don't. Praxidicae (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Locke Coal}} I am still semi-new to Wikipedia and am trying to learn the culture of defending my arguments here without violating any of the Wiki laws, so if my arguments seem to be "canvassing" it is not my intention, I am simply trying to defend my position. I try to educate myself before engaging in arguments, however it just seemed evident that this user was nominating due to a bias. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable and clearly backed by black-hat SEO work (almost every source is to literal fake news). I'm a bit disturbed this was reviewed by anyone without them catching this error. — Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 18:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, also {{ping|Hidden Hills Editor}} don't WP:CANVASS editor(s) to support you here. That tends to backfire spectacularly... —Locke Cole • t • c 19:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, also fails WP:WEBCRIT. Ifnord (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Hidden Hills Editor}} I see no bias here on the part of the nominator. What I do see are a hoard of crap black-hat PR sources you put in this article to make it look okay. That to me is more unacceptable than your supposed canvassing. So, I recommend you back away from this and let the community decide the article's fate. And, in the future, please actually check your sources before you write an article. Sources like this one and this one are especially not acceptable, and should not have been added anywhere on our site. — Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Hidden Hills Editor}} What bias issue do you believe is involved here. Evidence of such bias would be useful moving forward, additionally. Nick (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Coffee}} My inclusion of said "black-hat PR sources" are that of negligence and not intention. I am not worried about this article being deleted, if I violated the community by creating an article that is unacceptable, I want to learn from the mistake so I do not make it again. This was one of my first ever created articles and I simply searched google for anything to support it, I never tried to make it look okay, I simply have to learn what is considered a "black-hat" article and what is not. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Nick}} Thank you for expanding on this for me. What I felt was biased was that the user initially nominated the page John Romaniello for speedy deletion, as opposed to putting it up to a vote. The user then nominated this page for deletion, which features the same individual (John Romaniello) in episode 5 of the series. It just seemed strange to me that both pages associated with him were nominated for deletion and that the latter was nominated for speedy as opposed to a vote as this page was. Again, if I am wrong here forgive me as I am trying to learn the etiquette of page deletions and arguing here. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There has already been a deletion discussion about that article. Praxidicae (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there was a discussion about John Romaniello, as the outcome of that was deletion, unless there's a significant change (and looking at what was deleted, there unfortunately isn't) then deletion can be made easier through the 'speedy deletion' process. We would tend to encourage editors here to follow incoming and outgoing links from a page they mark for deletion, to see (a) if deletion may be avoided or if circumstances have changed, and (b) to see if there are additional pages which may require deletion or further discussion. It's entirely normal and largely expected to see an editor like Praxidicae following links and upon finding a related article which also requires discussion on its future, filing a deletion request so that discussion can take place. I'll take care of the John Romaniello deletion shortly, if it hasn't already been deleted, so that there's one less thing to concern us moving forward. Nick (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Nick}} Thank you for taking the time to explain this process a bit more in depth. As I stated earlier, I am not as seasoned as the majority of you here. I do have good intentions as an editor, I just have to learn the process more. Also, I wasn't aware that there was already a page deleted for John Romaniello, or I would have never attempted to create one, so now I know for future reference to check to see if there was ever a page deleted before creating one. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}
 * Strong Delete per WP:GNG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fake news has been removed from the article,and there's nothing left. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete since there is clearly nothing left to assert notability after removal of spam. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: I think it's all been said. This fails GNG. Waggie (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable web series. Nothing noteworthy about it. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:04, 2 March 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.