Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oli London (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. No consensus as to the reliability and relevance of the sources at issue.  Sandstein  09:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Oli London
AfDs for this article:


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

This article was never approved by anyone, and I don't think this article would meet any criteria. The focus of this article is heavily on the plastic surgery operations that they underwent to resemble Jimin of BTS. Though they released music they still do not meet WP:MUSIC. There's nothing significant about the subject. Their following count across social media accounts is huge but if that were to carry any weight then with that anyone with a decent following on social media could have their own article, but that is clearly not realistic. What really is notable about them other than the strange desire to look like another person? Though this has been discussed before it really needs to be reconsidered. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 07:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sexuality and gender, Internet,  and United Kingdom.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't understand your point "never approved by anyone" editors can create articles without anyone's approval. Anyway, there are reliable secondary sources about them and a quick google news search brought up loads of articles about (and I'm sorry to write this) their planned penis reduction surgery. They do meet the general notability criteria. It has taken a lot of effort to not add a joke here, I probably deserve a barnstar for that. CT55555 (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems like this has all been debated before >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oli_London CT55555 (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Btspurplegalaxy You've edited the reason for AfD, so now I'll reply to the new parts: the strangeness of their actions don't detract from their notability. Your username being the same as the name of band that this person is trying to look like does suggest you might care about why they are notable, but I'd urge you to consider not a judgement about why they are notable, just if they are notable. Also, please note their preferred pronouns. It is "they" not "him" WP:GNLPOLICY CT55555 (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've corrected them but I started this discussion again as it doesn't seem the last one resulted in just their notability being fully assessed. I do hope other editors look more at the notability of it rather than solely the subject having reliable sources. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 20:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - It was "approved" per se here after a discussion by the community. If it needs to be rehashed, then the subject has plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources. Ones that have happened since the most recent AfD in December include this and this. I hate Kardashian fame type Wikipedia pages, but it meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. You also may want to ping the editors involved in the discussion a few months ago. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging those from discussion in December 2021 -, , , , , , , , , , --CNMall41 (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete All I can find are pages of unreliable sources, from Newsweek to TMZ, The Daily Mail, The Sun etc. If someone can find better sources, ok then, but I don't see any. Oaktree b (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You have to sort through all fan crap but you will find them. There is The New Straits Times which is reliable. Also a book from 2021 published by Bloomsbury Publishing, a notable publisher (not a self-publisher). Was the subject of and a guest on the Dr Phil Show. I also wouldn't throw out the Insider as it has been determined to be reliable for certain information such as culture reporting. CNN (in Indonesia so not sure if they have the same editorial standards as US but assuming so in good faith), Vice, The West Australian, The NZHerald (also considered generally reliable), and others. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @CNMall41: FYI, The New Straits Times is a reprint of a Daily Mail piece. No comments on the other sources. – robertsky (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Here we go again, but I was pinged above, and feel the same way I did when I went with "Delete" last time.  Just because someone terms themself an "influencer", or some publication looks to hook a reader or two says "influencer" doesn't mean they have actually influenced anyone. There's an referenced Disography - did they chart at all?  Big whoop here, somebody has plastic surgery, and announces they're transracial, doesn't mean they did anything notable. And these days, a lot of TV shows based their guest lists on whatever shocking thing will make an audience tune in - accomplishments not a requirement. At least Caitlyn Jenner had some sizeable accomplishments prior to their decision to change genders. And Chaz  Bono was already famous decades prior to the change, and is using their experience to help others.  What did this guy do?  Nothing. Even piano playing cats can get on YouTube - no big deal. — Maile  (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that notability isn't defined by how interesting you personally find a particular subject (though I do sympathize with your boredom—there's a long list of topics I could care less about, but which nonetheless meet notability guidelines). Notability in this context is primarily defined by how independent secondary sources treat the subject of the article, and it seems pretty clear that as boring as you personally find this, enough reliable sources cover this in enough detail that this should be an unambiguous Keep. Yitz (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not assume. Boredom is not the issue here. Early life and Career sections, with only one exception, are flagged for sourcing issues.  Discography has no sourcing, no links, no information at all on the alleged singles.  Aside from those, all you have is the section on their identity.  And ... so what?  My comments higher up on Jenner and Bono, were meant to convey that the reason their gender reassignments were known, is because they had been celebrities for decades before each had the process.  Otherwise, they'd just be two trans people we would have never heard of. — Maile  (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing has changed since the last AfD. They have sigcov in The Daily Dot, Business Insider, and Sky News. It does not matter what "accomplishments" they may or may not have, all that matters is that they satisfy WP:BASIC. Which this individual does, so that should be the end of the discussion. Mlb96 (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I just googled them and there have been two articles in Newsweek where they are the focus. Has this person ever accomplished anything but drama?  Maybe not.  But have they got significant coverage because of causing drama?  It seems so.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Newsweek's not a reliable source per WP:RSP. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think Wikipedia should deserve to have an article of someone who is only famous for changing their race by having multiple plastic surgeries and engaging in obsessive/toxic fan behaviour. No notable achievements and having music career which was literally unknown and later poorly received among general populace. This is an online encyclopaedia, not a celebrity gossip site. Toadboy123 (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Like I said last time, this article is full of material that is either unsourced or improperly sourced. Last time I suggested that if anyone thought it should be kept they they could dratify if until it was ready for mainspace but since last time no one seems to make any good edits to the article and almost all the sources are tagged as unreliable. If we removed all of that content that isn't properly sourced, then the article would just be a stub. If editors feel that this is an article worth keeping then they should've worked on fixing it to make it a proper article with reliable sources but since no one seems to be interested in it then that shows that this person isn't really notable enough to have an article and it should just get deleted. FanDePopLatino (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * since no one seems to be interested in it then that shows that this person isn't really notable enough to have an article That is not how our notability policy works. Mlb96 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Stubs are okay as articles, but yes, I would like all the cruft to be shaken out and see if it can stand on what's left. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep as CNMall41 points out above, there is ample reliable sourcing available. There is no need for the subject to meet WP:NMUSIC, they just need to meet WP:NBIO. Notability isn't about what the person did, it's about the coverage they receive. NemesisAT (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is classic WP:BLP1E and needs further analysis as to whether they have continuing impact and whether they will continue getting coverage.WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Although deletion is not cleanup WP:DINC, the preponderance of unreliable sources makes it difficult to assess this. Because the article is a BLP, all the unreliable sources and their related statements should be removed immediately:
 * Per WP:KO/RS, Kpopcalypse, Koreaboo, United K-pop
 * Per WP:RSP, Newsweek (unreliable), Business Insider (borderline unreliable), Insider Culture topic (OK to keep)
 * The person does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, so I would also get rid of  or comment out the singles listed.
 * The appearance on Dr. Phil helps, but they are nowhere near Bhad Bhabie in notability for showing up on a talk show. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also if the result is to delete, I would merge to Jimin (singer, born 1995) under the Impact and influence section.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Great analysis and spot on. I am with the WP:IDL crowd as I don't feel this person deserves to be in Wikipedia for blowing all their money for something like this. However, IDL is an argument to avoid and they have received continued significant coverage over the last three years so WP:LASTING should be met in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Plenty of sourcing to meet WP:SIGCOV; if the existing sources aren't enough for you, there's also this Newsweek article. Most of the !delete votes are essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Invited by with a neutral post on my talk page. I am with  on this. As much as IDL on the subject, but I don't see the need to delete the article. If kept, the statements backed by unreliable sources should be removed  for it is a BLP (WP:KO/RS should be applicable for this subject since the primary notability angle is a Korean one (K-pop)). However, if it is a decision to be deleted, I rather that the article be redirected and merged into Jimin (singer, born 1995), summarising only the statements that are backed by reliable sources. – robertsky (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient coverage in sources to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:13, 12 March 2022 (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.