Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unidan (3rd 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 procedural keep. This deletion discussion is closed as procedural keep because previous deletion discussion was less than 15 days ago, and to save the community time. I'm not sure what really a deletion rationale here is, No longer notable? Notability is not temporary. In case, nominator doubts whether the subject merits a Wikipedia article or not, he/she is advised to renominate the article for deletion after a reasonable time. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  01:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Unidan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No longer notable - shadowbanned from reddit and largely inactive. Notability questionable to begin with, only claim to fame being status as a poweruser on reddit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrada10 (talk • contribs) — Contrada10 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep His banning was widely reported by several media outlets. 82.181.62.99 (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Strong Keep Please can I quickly point out that just because reddit.com/u/unidan we shouldn't necessarily remove the page. u/violentacrez also does not exist, yet this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Brutsch does. His banning was covered by news outlets and became a popular subject across social media and not just Reddit. In addition to this, a lot of people actually come to this page after hearing about Unidan and not knowing who he is. I have a feeling that perhaps some of the people who want this page removed are actually motivated by personal dislike of Unidan following an "Anti-Unidan" "circlejerk" on Reddit. It is not in the interests of Wikipedia to remove the article. O99o99 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy keep We don't need to have an afd just a week after the 2nd one concluded. There is a time and place for the community to assess whether an article is notable. We already did that one week ago. Maybe in a month or two the time will be right again, but not so close to the last afd close. Tutelary (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Nothing's changed since the last AfD a week or so ago, or the one a couple of months before that, and notability is well covered by multiple reliable sources. The nom's argument is flawed to begin with (notability is not temporary). AfD is not a process where we continuously nominate disliked articles until they are removed, especially when the nom gives no new argument for deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Notability established by quite a bit of coverage from independent secondary sources, which also covered his ban. The last AfD ended as No Consensus barely a week ago, and I don't think anything has changed since then. Breadblade (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

On the merits, there's probably a slightly stronger case for deletion than for keeping. Notability due to the banning strikes me as notability for a single thing, or as news-type coverage. However, since there was a nomination earlier his month that did not reach a consensus to delete, I don't think a new nomination this soon really fits within the spirit of Wikipedia. Croctotheface (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E would only apply if his ban were the only thing he received coverage for. The above editors are most likely arguing that his widely reported ban has increased his notability rather than reducing it. I don't think anyone is saying that his ban is the only thing he is notable for. Breadblade (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article already existed] and there was already an AfD before the ban's news coverage, and the article already had news coverage. The ban just added more coverage to it, so I don't think anyone can seriously argue that the case for notability is solely around the ban's coverage, as that's not the case. Reliable sources existed long before this ban coverage, so it's not "notability due to the banning", that coverage only adds to the notability that was already there. - Aoidh (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2014 (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.