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 keep‎. The few Delete views cited NPOV concerns, which the Keep consensus views handily countered as an editorial issue, rather than a reason to delete. Similarly, BLP1E/UNDUE issues can be fixed editorially, as long as the subject is otherwise notable, and unsourced claims or labels can be removed without the need to delete or "TNT" the page, as most pointed out. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

StoneToss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the 3rd deletion nomination for this subject. (Previous discussions: [1], [2]) As observed in WP:BEFORE, the subject status has not changed since the previous 2 deletions - that of a controversial social media artist. As before, the article struggles with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Article is also WP:BLP and does not appear to contain any listed item to satisfy WP:ARTIST. All sourced material to the subject involve activity that occur exclusively on social media.

The article first sentence, short description, and page category refers to the subject as a "neo-nazi" cartoonist. This is despite the claim being disputed by the subject within the sourced materials itself. [3][4] WP:NPOV

Other material for the article include; sources from political outlets [5] [6] including those calling for the subject's deplatforming[7] per WP:RS, sources that include only short or single-sentence blurbs on the subject[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] WP:SIGCOV, and sources listed as dubious by wikipedia [14] [15] WP:RS. One notable source [16] claims that the subject is a neo-nazi, but itself references a single quote by a user banned on the X platform in relation to the subject. In every single case, the referenced material exclusively concerns interactions on social media. As one source [17] states, "this case is remarkable because no-one outside of extremely online spaces cares." Fails WP:ARTIST criterion. GoggleGoose (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Webcomics, Politics, and Internet. GoggleGoose (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm divided, because, on one hand, I'd like to see Wikipedia have far fewer articles about random internet personalities. Unfortunately the extent of this specific personality's involvement in far-right radicalization within the United States likely makes him somewhat notable. Ultimately I would say that the references at the SPLC and the ADL indicate more notability than simply showing up on Wired and, on that basis, I'd argue for Weak Keep Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Both articles contain only a single sentence in reference to the subject [18] [19] An obvious example of a WP:SIGCOV problem.

  GoggleGoose (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Delete – While StoneToss has become somewhat more notable recently, it is going to be near impossible to keep within the guidelines of WP:NPOV for WP:BLP for this article given the number of detractors he has. GranCavallo (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Outside of the doxxing incident, he has received little significant coverage. Perhaps some of this content can be merged into Alt-right pipeline or a similar article? Estreyeria (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP concerns by nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose rewrite the article from a neutral point of view. trainrobber >be me 19:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What is POV about it? 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing POV about the article. The article reflects WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 05:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Include - Is notable and influential in the far-right scene. I'm surprised this matter is even contentious. Roadtruck (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE SWinxy (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Concerns about adhering to WP:NPOV are not by themselves sufficient to justify deleting an article, since editors have navigated this on similar WP:BLP topics like the articles for Ben Shapiro and Thomas Robb. Stonetoss having many detractors is not a major issue since most of his detractors are not Wikipedia editors and some of his most vocal supporters are likely to be editors as well (generalizing based on the wider population). I would be willing to take on the task of rewriting this article in a neutral POV.

The claim that this article's existence hinges on social media interactions is inaccurate, since Stonetoss has a long history of publishing comics that espouse the author's views such as [this anti-Semitic one (Archive link [url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240117231253/https://stonetoss.com/comic/as-above-so-below/]). Publishing content on the internet that is subsequently reblogged on social media sites does not seem sufficient to describe someone as a "social media artist".

As far as notability is concerned, I might have been favour of moving the content to a "far right pipeline" or similar article, even after the doxxing incident, but X/Twitter removing mentions of Stonetoss' identity and suppressing journalist accounts elevates the notability of the original account and will result in increased searches for the author's online name. The figure is notable in far right circles, even though far right views are niche among the general population. TROPtastic (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing content on the internet that is subsequently reblogged on social media sites does not seem sufficient to describe someone as a "social media artist".

When those reblogs are from the creator themself, it most certainly does. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In support of @Brusquedandelion's point, the majority of the article cites a Twitter/X controversy and a single one at that. GoggleGoose (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The first four references (Wired, Boing Boing, Daily Dot, and Mashable) all seem to show significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:RSPS lists Wired as "generally reliable," Boing Boing as "no consensus on the reliability ... some of its articles are written by subject-matter experts ," Daily Dot as "no consensus regarding the general reliability," and Mashable as "non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine." Elspea756 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to 2024 StoneToss controversy or something like that. I don't know whether he can be argued to be notable as a cartoonist, but X's response of aggressively clamping down on efforts to spread the article or even post the subject's name despite it not being per se a TOS violation after StoneToss personally appealed to Musk to do so is definitely getting the kind of coverage to make notability beyond question, especially in light of the apparent double standard regarding deadnaming of trans figures on the platform and Musk's relative inaction in that area. (And if we do do this, we should not publish the subject's name and at least RevDel any previous appearances. I don't care what an execrable human being he probably is, his identity was disclosed without his consent despite his efforts (documented by ACC, no less) to keep it a secret. ACC and all the others spreading it around may have their reasons, and I may agree with them, but Wikipedia does not have to, and should not be, part of this). We can only if he decides to confirm all this and discuss it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose split the article into two. The 'incident' and the 'webcomic' trainrobber >be me 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The “incident” would not pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They're likely only notable now because of the "incident". I didn't see notability last time about just the webcomic. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose, there's no need for a split. When people are searching for information about this they'll be searching for StoneToss alone. TarnishedPath^talk 05:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - In agreement with replies from @PARAKANYAA, the failure of the subject's notability in the two prior deletion discussions isn't helped with the singular Twitter/X event GoggleGoose (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Elspea, coverage by RSes has changed since the last nom. 3df (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of these sources show any more notability than the past discussion. They’re all in the context of one event (WP:BLP1E), him getting doxed, and none of the reliable sources analyze his works. The new sources in existence do not actually discuss what would, hypothetically, be notable about him - the content of his comics. He got doxed, and then people got banned for reporting on it. Add that to the article about controversies relating to Twitter that I’m sure we have. Why would we have an article on an artist, especially a political one, when their works are barely discussed in the sources we have on them? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If their works are barely discussed in the sources we have on them, how are we able to have the content found in Special:Permalink/1214892159#Content and reception? —Alalch E. 22:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources in this section,

ADL - passing mention

GNET report - passing mention

GNET - mentions him exclusively in the context of a Reddit conflict with little analysis of what he actually says besides racist

the daily dot - listed as no consensus on reliability; IMO they are not good for notability when it comes to the internet because they have a penchant for covering random internet drama that no other outlet cares about

ECPS - this one is good

CEP - this is an opinion blog PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a fair analysis, but but this is also SIGCOV: Marlin-Bennett, Renée; Jackson, Susan T (February 9, 2022). "DIY Cruelty: The Global Political Micro-Practices of Hateful Memes". Global Studies Quarterly. 2 (2). doi:10.1093/isagsq/ksac002. ISSN 2634-3797. Archived from the original on March 21, 2024. Retrieved March 17, 2024. (94 words, goes into intricate detail, discusses the webcomic's impact on certain online communities) —Alalch E. 01:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note to PARAKANYAA and others that it's not necessary that they be notable for "the content of his comics." They can be the author of the least notable comic book on the planet and still be notable for some other reason. Elspea756 (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing WP:SIGCOV in the article you linked. A mere three sentences are referring to webcomic out of the whole article, the opposite of "intricate detail". Indeed, the same source was referenced as an example of lack of WP:SIGCOV in prior deletion discussions. GoggleGoose (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that's also SIGCOV, and whoever thought it wasn't was just wrong. —Alalch E. 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep they are very well known online and on social media, and very controversial as well. rename perhaps? 108.49.72.125 (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Rename to what? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  something like "2024 Stonetoss controversy" like another user suggested or something along those lines 108.49.72.125 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources 1 and 8 talk about the individual and the Twitter accounts that got banned, and the events around this decision. Likely somewhat more notability now than when I !voted last time, given what's happened. Should be ok for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I started out editing Wikipedia by successfully deleting dozens of vanity webcomics. This is more notable than all of those combined, backed up with many reliable sources, even before his recent outing. And it's fine to mention the author's name after it has been covered by reliable sources, it's those sources we base our judgement by. The media have a history of unmasking pseudonyms, I think we're overdue a new Banksy or Satoshi Nakamoto outing. - hahnchen 02:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We're not here to right great wrongs or to virtue signal, we're here to determine whether a subject meets our standards for inclusion based upon the General Notability Guideline or some focused Special Notability Guideline. This subject in the wake of widespread current coverage in addition to past coverage, clearly does. Fuck the alt right, but that's neither here nor there. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Subject clearly has WP:SIGCOV and passes WP:GNG. We're not here to WP:RGW. We're here to reflect what WP:RS have to say. TarnishedPath^talk 05:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It seems to me, judging by the sources, this comic clearly passes GNG. Di (they-them) (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deletion is not cleanup, and whether to describe him as "neo-Nazi" in Wikivoice is something that should be discussed, rather than used as an argument for deletion. Subject passes WP:GNG, so whether he passes WP:ARTIST or not shouldn't be a relevant factor. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 10:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: By the way, I want to point out that the arguments regarding StoneToss being unimportant to people who aren't "extremely online" or that the article is only about social media usage are unconvincing in my opinion. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but still, if dril can be a Good Article I don't see why we would need to delete an article on the basis of somebody being a pseudonymous Twitter user. Di (they-them) (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly passes GNG. Schierbecker (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article may need to be reworked but StoneToss as a comic is notable, and there is a lot of news coverage on it. RPI2026F1 (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's worth noting that the page [20] of the individual named in connection with the article has already been deleted per WP:G10, gross abuse of WP:BLP. As noted in the previous two successful deletion nominations, the subject and its controversy tends to suffer from WP:NPOV and might be the subject to WP:BATTLE. Some users claim no issue with WP:GNG, but as per Wikipedia:Notability (people), which covers biographies of living persons, the relevant criteria is WP:ARTIST and remains unsatisfied. (WP:GNG specifically links to Wikipedia:Notability (people) in that case). Most of the cited coverage is complaining about the content and not much else. A chartable interpretation might be that the subject is WP:BLP1E for being recently doxed, but the consensus of the prior two deletion discussions is that, on its own, the subject's status is just a controversial twitter user.

MiniMayor98 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNG do not override WP:GNG, and subject-specific notability guidelines are not requirements if the general one is satisfied. Very explictly, Wikipedia:Notability (people) links to GNG and restates it, saying People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below., and later A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. (emphasis not mine) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name which Wikipedia policy says calling a spade a spade is somehow not neutral? If reliable sources are calling Stonetoss a Nazi, I fail to see how that is an NPOV violation. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: encyclopedically relevant topic with sufficient sourcing already in the article to meet WP:GNG. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More than enough ongoing WP:RS-based coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Multiple reliable sources cover the comic and person behind it, and deletion is not clean up. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 19:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Almost all the article content is about the author's doxxing, and almost all the rest is about alt-right meme culture and Twitter drama generally, of which StoneToss is a small part. On its own, not sufficiently notable as either a cultural force or a webcomic. Candent shlimazel (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the subject is such a small part of it, why is there significant coverage of the webcomic? —Alalch E. 22:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  At present the total article size is 17,220 bytes in size and the section regarding the alleged revelation of their identity is 7,019 bytes in size. Therefore your statement that "[a]lmost all the article content is about the author's doxxing" is plainly incorrect. TarnishedPath^talk 01:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we want text size alone (no references, templates, etc., just the amount of text content that shows up), that's 4934 bytes and 1889 bytes respectively, so still very far from "almost all". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In any case, not even a good argument for deletion regardless of whether it was even close. TarnishedPath^talk 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're measuring the text in words and not bytes, like humans who read Wikipedia, doxxing content is 365/779 words, or 46.9%. Not half, but close. Getting doxxed and clowned on by reddit and being a small and relatively uninfluential part of a broad phenomenon – there: that's the whole article – does not make a subject notable. Candent shlimazel (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with @Candent shlimazel, as noted in the nom the previous 2 deletion requests could not find notability for an article, and the only update since was a twitter controversy. GoggleGoose (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't quite come to an opinion on deletion or not but Stonetoss is not just "a small part" of alt-right meme culture, he's almost certainly the best known alt-right comic creator nowadays. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sufficient coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG, as noted above. Isi96 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are plenty of good sources here. The naming controversy is the largest single aspect getting coverage but this is far from being BLP1E. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is just to add that I also oppose any split or rename. There is no distinct second topic here. The comic, its author and his controversies are all aspects of a single topic which is called "StoneToss" and which is the subject of this article. DanielRigal (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am not seeing any particular evidence to challenge the notability of the subject. Dympies (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are enough independent, reliable sources. Their coverage of him as a topic is holistic (the comics, ideology, online influence, previous comics, identity), not in saccade or in relation only to one specific event (re: BLP1E or sporadic coverage concerns). The RS concerns are misstated ("political outlets" is not a reliability categorisation), and so are the BLP concerns (subject denials of labels like "neo-nazi" are not given consideration when deciding neutrality). More subjectively and less policy-based: his cultural "influence" is sustained (duration) and wide enough (leftist attempts to reclaim, and use by Stonetoss of numerous "gateway/radicalization pipeline" memes, like the Bitcoin one, that look innocuous and get widely shared by normies) that having an article seems appropriate. DFlhb (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Well said. In fact, with reference to the reliability of "political outlets" I would generally treat the SPLC, for example, as more reliable and a greater indicator of notability than general media when addressing notable far-right figures. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose. Statements in your comment are simply incorrect. You state, "subject denials of labels like "neo-nazi" are not given consideration when deciding neutrality" is false. Such a denial, particularly when they appear in secondary sources as noted in the nom, are permissible per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS. This is in addition to the fact that "nazi" is considered a "word to watch" per MOS:LABEL (the WP:BLP concern you glossed over).

  The WP:RS issue also goes beyond simply "misstated" political outlets (neither source was rated by WP:RSP, by the way) . While biased sources are permitted with caution per WP:PARTISAN, they are just one of the issues listed by the nom. It also includes sources that were deemed insufficiently WP:RS in the prior 2 deletion discussions. Again, as now and in the prior deletions, coverage of the subject focuses on drama occurring on social media. GoggleGoose (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @GoggleGoose, not being rated on WP:RSP is not a statement against a source. To imply that it is displays a fundamental lack of understanding with how WP:RSP and WP:RS/N operate. TarnishedPath^talk 08:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't mention it as a statement against a source. I mentioned it to clarify I wasn't doubting a source that might already exist on WP:RSP. GoggleGoose (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DFlhb. A normal topic of encyclopedic interest that obviously can be suitably covered.—Alalch E. 14:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's it? At WP:ANI you had written (diff): Update: I edited the draft, moved it to mainspace based on my editorial judgement, as I found various existing sources, and new significant coverage did materialize in the last few days, then another camel-case-username account appeared from a user who had emailed WMF claiming libel and tagged for G10, Keegan took the tag down, then that user tried to enforce removal leading to 3RRN, leading to a 24h block, but this was then also followed by a CU block. In the meantime, various editors in good standing have seen the article and apparently found no fault with it, and several have edited it. —Alalch E. 11:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) You don't find that pertinent? What happened with the WP:AFC? I read your spartan keep support here, and regardless of the way notability is trending here, I find it lacking. Yes, you have the WP:NPR user right, but from my deletion to your next-day recreation, the timeline seems a bit murky. It'd likely gone unnoticed by me had this not been brought to my attention by another admin, Liz (diff). So you need to be more upfront with how you operate when it comes to un/deletion of pages involving living persons, Alalch E. El_C 16:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  At some point after making the ANI report I became interested in this topic. When I made the ANI report, I wanted to put a stop to a misuse of Wikipedia. The topic did not seem notable, I found out that there had been AfDs, and thought that we are probably not going to have this article in the foreseeable future. Then, I became interested in the topic simply from being introduced to it. My work on this preexisting draft and the decision to explore developing it into an article is essentially detached from what I saw when I encountered the made-to-troll version of this page which you deleted. And as I was working on the draft, new sources were emerging. Which is completely incidental. I did not predict this medium-size public controversy happening, especially since I am allergic to Twitter and do not follow what is going on there. I started out by adding references to preexisting sources, that already existed at the time of the last AfD, but were either not found or were not assessed properly then. I actually think that the notability of this topic rests on those sources primarily. Ultimately, the content of the page when it was moved to mainspace was completely different from any previous content that was deleted, which I determined by viewing an archived version of a deleted page under this name. Therefore, completely irrespectively of my being a new page patroller, I moved the article as an editorial decision, to enrich the encyclopedia with a new article. I could have marked the article as reviewed as a patroller because I had not created it, but consciously I did not. I anticipated an AfD and AfDs are fine. An AfD is nothing to shy from. My contributions to this article have been very stable and no serious content disputes have emerged since. My approach to this topic has been studious and responsible. And I have a certain view about AfC which I believe to be the only correct view: AfC is optional (the entire draft apparatus is optional—WP:DRAFT: ... creating a Draft version first is optional) and isn't designed to be something else + editors don't need permission to create content, and the only exception to that is when they are technically prevented from doing so through salting and title blacklisting. —Alalch E. 17:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Upon deletion, I pointed to WP:AFC approval, specifically so that there is a record of such a review—a summary—on a page involving a living person that was twice deleted in procedures such as this (diff). But you have ignored and circumvented that, making that timeline challenging to parse. Do I need to log this caution at WP:AEL to get that point across? I didn't think I needed to, but your response above gives me pause. El_C 17:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have replied on my talk page. —Alalch E. 18:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The nom has set out in detail the problems with the sources and just been completely ignored. Where is the significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources? Where are the sources covering this prior to the Twitter/X controversy and attempts to reveal the identity of the creator? How can we create an encyclopedic article solely based on media reporting of social media bickering? AusLondonder (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The complaints of the nom have been responded to in this discussion, and they are mostly frivolous and obviously stand in contrast to the state that the article is in. For example, you say Where are the sources covering this prior to the Twitter/X controversy and attempts to reveal the identity of the creator but this is simply ridiculous and not worth responding to. —Alalch E. 20:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly the nom overstates any issues by trying to muddy the waters on sources for which there is no consensus by claiming that they are "listed as dubious" This is simply incorrect and a misrepresentation of how WP:RSP and WP:RS/N works. A classification of "dubious" is not something that happens at WP:RSP. When RfCs are being run at WP:RS/N on the reliability of sources, "dubious" is not one of the options that is voted for or can be arrived at when a closer determines consensus.

  Secondly even if we only want to rely on sources for which there is no questions about them being WP:GREL, a reference from NBC has been added since the start of this AfD. Therefore there are two in-depth, reliable sources (NBC and Wired). Thus we have "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources".

  Thirdly the references used in the article don't just cover the social media spat, the fact that notability has become more apparent as a result of what occurred is not an argument for deletion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support perspective of @AusLondonder. This article, and the sources that are cited for it have sprung up in connection to a very recent doxing of the subject on twitter. As per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article". This is on top of the fact that the article subject was already deleted after 2 previous deletion discussions for notability issues.

  One user claims the nom is "overstated" for using the phrasing "dubious" when describing some of the citations, however it is perfectly appropriate. While WP:RSP uses the phrase "no consensus on the reliability" for the sources, describing it as "dubious" does not mean "false" or "incorrect". Again, the reliability of some of those same sources were cited as reasoning for the success of previous 2 page deletions. GoggleGoose (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop bludgeoning the conversation. That's the third !vote you add here, which is frankly inappropriate and gives the appearance that more people are supporting your side than there actually are. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Reliable sources can talk about anything. They can talk about sports, which is completely trivial. Not only can we discuss these topics, we must. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and oppose split: meets GNG. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DFlhb rationale. Issues with RS and POV should be dealt with on talk page, not as part of a deletion process. GNG per SIGCOV from Wired and NBC. Mashable should also be acknowledged as SIGCOV, as there is consensus that the latter's non-sponsored content is "generally fine" within their remit of tech news, which this is. Given previous coverage, can't be considered for BLP1E anymore.

CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject of the article meets WP:GNG. The fact that there may be bias in the article doesn't mean that the article should be deleted - the bias or any wrong facts on the article have to be fixed. Coverage from the Evening Standard, Wired, and MSN is more than enough to establish his notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Neutrality concerns are irrelevant to discussion of deletion. Subject approaches WP:1E, but technically passes it with acceptable sources that predate the event in question. Rᴇɪʟ (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Neutrality is not relevant here, and there's plenty of good citations for much of the information in the article Freee Contributor (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but possibly Draftify. I think the other keep !voters have already given good rationales and I mostly agree with them, so there's not much need to add my voice to that. Frankly, I was kind of surprised to see this article nominated for deletion in the first place. That said, I agree that the article is a mess, particularly given the potential BLP concerns, so if it's going to be kept, it definitely needs a lot of cleanup (up to and including the WP:TNT approach). I'm opposed to outright deletion, but I'd be on board with draftifying it. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Something not yet observed in this deletion discussion is an admin admonishing an editor for a deceptive edit that circumvented WP:AFC for this page, which had multiple successful deletion discussions - (diff) and again (diff). I have enumerated this and other problems in the Talk Page (also diff for reference).

To reiterate the other issues briefly, they are: reverting good faith edits attempting to prevent MOS:LABEL abuse of WP:BLP; eliminating the subject's url for WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons; and recent news attention drawing users in for a WP:BATTLE that resulted in a WP:G10 deletion of another page and attempts to hide the deletion discussion template on the mainspace, among others.

Minus the edit that was caught by an admin, all of the other issues occurred after the page was already WP:XC protected. This is a WP:NPOV mess. MiniMayor98 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not presented any arguments for deletion. TarnishedPath^talk 23:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have and I previously voted for Delete in the discussion above. To clarify, the page suffers from poor WP:NPOV and interference from WP:BATTLE. As another editor suggested, it might be worthy of WP:TNT. This was also the process by which the 1st deletion discussion ended. MiniMayor98 (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LASTTIME.

Also, remember to read my comment below (23:43, 26 March 2024) and apologize to me when you can (for saying "deceptive edit"; note that that's your interpretation and the administrator did not say "deceptive"). —Alalch E. 08:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was observed, I saw it and responded to it. If you mean "not yet observed" as in editors not yet !voting "delete" based on what is written in that thread, that is something that did not happen because it is not a reason to delete an article, and editors know it. It could happen, as all kinds of comments are possible, and there could indeed be recommendations that the article be deleted because an editor (me) moved this page while it was a draft to article space without submitting through AfC when an administrator pointed to WP:AFC approval. However, these !votes would be discountable as failing to point to a reason to delete a page under Wikipedia's deletion policy, and the consensus to delete could not form around such comments.

You see, when closing deletion discussions, the community's consensus is judged after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue, etc. Were a closing administrator to make such a mistake to delete this page as a page not created through AfC when AfC was indicated because they thought that that was the consensus, that administrator's judgement would be very seriously questioned, and the deletion would be undone via Deletion review. This is not to say that I acted correctly not to use AfC. But the remedy is not deleting the article. It's not about the article as an article, it's about creating an easily attestable proof of good, ordinary, Wikipedia volunteer work. My work was and is good and ordinary, but when I was asked to provide assistance in creating this record, this easily attestable proof (in the form of an AfC pass, and I assure you of this: as I am a reviewer of AfC submissions and am familiar with the process and the requirements, I could hardly face any difficulties in having something I wrote accepted; so it's a formality)—to avoid possible confusion, such as the confusion that can be seen in your comment—I failed to deliver assistance. Not because I did not want to help (I very much want to help and am highly sympathetic to administrators' efforts), but I did not understand what was needed at the moment. The remedy was to warn me, see if I understand the warning and if I am willing to make the needed commitment, which I responded to by making the commitment to follow the guidance given.

Irrespective of this, as none of the above has any bearing on there being or not content issues: There are no content issues. This is a wonderful article, a wonderful educational material that will serve humanity, and a splendid source of free knowledge for generations to come. —Alalch E. 23:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin note - I have reverted the early close of this discussion by TarnishedPath, who is involved in the discussion. While this discussion is clearly trending keep, the closer ought to consider that the previous two, rather recent, deletion discussions were strong delete results, and the topic is clearly controversial. Please leave this for an uninvolved closer to evaluate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks a lot, that closure really shouldn't have happened given how involved the closer was. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ivanvector, noted and apologies. TarnishedPath^talk 13:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. To me, the subject is notable. A source stating that "no-one outside of extremely online spaces cares" has no bearing on Wikipedia policy. We're not here as activists or to virtue signal, we have to take a level-headed look at the issue of notability.

There is now more significant coverage than when the previous AfDs were opened. This Daily Dot article [[21]] covers the subject as a person, for example. But many sources refer to him only in the context of the doxing incident, so we have to be wary of WP:BLP1E. I would not oppose renaming the article to focus on this incident.

That said, I believe there is often a shortfall in Wikipedia when primarily internet-famous figures are concerned: our reliance on more "traditional" forms of media here makes very influential people under-represented in sources, despite the internet being very relevant in contemporary discourse. StoneToss has been relevant even outside the far-right bubble for a while now, he just has little coverage in the traditional media we require to have covered him. So, in principle, I am in favor of keeping the article name as it is.

I suggest using the KnowYourMeme entry ([[22]]) as a source if it can be considered an appropriate one. It lays out facts about the subject in a concise way according to data found through research. As per WP: BOLD I have added it to the page and made other changes defended here, but feel free to revert if needed.

As per WP:BLP policy, I strongly agree that this article should be overhauled to meet WP:NPOV although balanced with the info our WP:RS attest, including referring to him using various derogatory labels. Although I believe including "neo-Nazi" in the lead of the article citing a news article from Wired is a bit much. CVDX (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also WP:WAPO describing him as such, but I do see your point none the less. For such a contentious MOS:LABEL I'm not convinced two reliable sources are enough as per best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources. This also comes under MOS:OPENPARABIO and doesn't necessarily reflect the balance of reliable sources, even if helps to establish notability. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, for the time being I have removed the "neo-Nazi" label. Later we can look more closely at the sources, when the WP:BATTLE ends. CVDX (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Call me up when it ends so I can join you. Having me on the team is an absolute asset when it comes to checking sources. First dibs on calling what we will look at first: The first source that we will look more closely at will be the reference to WP:KNOWYOURMEME, a WP:UGC website which you added in Special:Diff/1215875130, by consensus listed as a generally unreliable source, meaning: questionable in most cases. ... should never be used for information about a living person. —Alalch E. 23:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The KnowYourMeme source should definitely be discussed, but I genuinely don't think the AfD is the best place to talk about this. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the imaginary and imputed battle is certainly expected to continue for some time after the AfD has been closed. —Alalch E. 00:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the good moment for a reminder to WP:AGF. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I would definitely support that we should all assume good faith I also think the claims that the page is a battleground seem over-salted somewhat. It's a fraught and contentious issue, yes, but I do think the recent multiple RFCs on the page have demonstrated that everybody there, aside from a few WP:NOTHERE trolls who have effectively been removed, is perfectly willing to collaborate. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby, I'm not sure what there is to discuss? WP:KNOWYOURMEME is WP:GUNREL per consensus at WP:RS/N and therefor it doesn't belong in a BLP under any circumstances and that's the end of the analysis. Is there something I'm missing? TarnishedPath^talk 05:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with you, I was just thinking that it could be discussed in case some people would disagree with the removal. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that's already been conveyed to them? TarnishedPath^talk 21:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.