Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Geick (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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Geick

Dylan Geick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Dylan Geick does not meet Wikipedia's

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)and[reply]

• Super Keep (Author) He did not leave the Columbia wrestling team he took a gap year.. you can see by the sometimes 500 views a day of his wiki page that he has a strong following as a subject.. where is your evidence that his followers on social media were purchased.. His poetry has been written about by the New York Times.. there has been wider media coverage since the first article of him was deleted after having been nominated for damnation via an isp address then proxied into prosecution... By the way thanks for abreasting me of this nomination it is so very gentlemanly of you not to do so. ... Williamsdoritios (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Per
  WP:POPULARPAGE, pageview stats are not a reason to keep an article (in addition to being easily gamed). There has been no significant coverage of the subject's self-published poetry in the New York Times or anywhere else that I can find. Just context (not centrally relevant), but claims that the subject's social media following has been purchased are so widespread that he has repeatedly mentioned them himself. Omaharodeo (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I have no opinion about whether this should be kept or deleted, but must point out that it is impossible for notability to decrease. Reliable sources, which are the basis of notability, do not unwrite themselves.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I note that there has been an article published about the subject in the Chicago Tribune since the last AfD discussion, so it is possible that notability has increased.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I take your points. To the extent there has been any coverage, it has been mostly about the subject being a gay athlete, so one idea would be merging into
  WP:NCOLLATH. Omaharodeo (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Just ftr, that article was published in the Lake County News-Sun which is a "regional newspaper based in Gurnee, Illinois." It appears on the Tribune domain because of how Tronc organizes regional newspaper content. Omaharodeo (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is a New York Times aricle for Heaven's sake [1]Williamsdoritios (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That is a column, not an article. One notable difference is that the information conveyed is mostly unverified. Additionally, this particular column (Up Next) is only included in the local edition of the Times because the subjects are not of national importance. The vast majority of Up Next column subjects do not have standalone articles on Wikipedia. Omaharodeo (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Its national you were able to read it..Its international.. you break away parts of the story and try to destroy it but all put together he is notable and only getting more notable. Further to say the rest of most of all the rest of the citations are gay athlete things is to denigrate that as well....(this is local this is gay).. The New York Times is probably the most notable newspaper in the United States and they have fact checkers and all national stories are local in originWilliamsdoritios (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Per
  WP:TOOSOON. Omaharodeo (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - It may have been too soon then but its not too soon nowWilliamsdoritios (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (stike through, see final comment in this thread). Obviously this article needs some work, which I'm starting on. But if you look at the sources, he meets GNG. Articles solely focusing on the subject appear in the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Tribune (again), the Chicago Tribune (a third time), Outsports, the Up Next section of the NYT, Socialite Life, Chicago Pride, and others. --Kbabej (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the record, he did not appear in the Chicago Tribune; he appeared in various regional papers focused on the suburbs that do not seem to establish notability per
  WP:NCOLLATH. They are on the Tribune domain because of how Tronc organizes local content. Omaharodeo (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Good to know (re: Chicago Tribune). But, to be fair, is it WP:NCOLLATH? It isn't statistics of plays they're reporting. It's coverage based on him coming out and being an out athlete. --Kbabej (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good point, it's a mix of

WP:BLP1E. Omaharodeo (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Is it BLP1E when you add the coming out, poetry, and influencer stuff together? That seems like three separate areas of coverage. --Kbabej (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry has no significant coverage that I have been able to find; did you find any? The book was a self-published thing that anyone can make using a for-pay website. I'm not sure how to quantify the "influencer" stuff, but there is no reliable coverage of it, just spammy blogs and so forth right? I appreciate this good-faith discussion. Omaharodeo (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of good faith discussions, I'm becoming more convinced while talking with you about a neutral vote at this point. As for quantifying the influencer stuff, there's the article at Socialite Life, which has been used a total of 11 times on WP, not counting this article. There's an article on Queerty talking about his fans, and the Lake-County News Sun calls him an "internet celebrity." So there's not a ton there, but still a some coverage. --Kbabej (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your characterization -- some coverage exists, however dicey. I went through the Socialite Life and Queerty links and wow they seem pretty brutal as sources. They are primarily a bunch of links to the subject's Instagram posts with a few sentences indicating he is a gay wrestler. The Lake-County News Sun article you cite seems much closer, but then that's hyper hyper hyper local. Omaharodeo (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the arguments below, the fact that the "Chicago Tribune" articles were in fact regional news (my fault on that one), and the possibility of inflated followers, I am striking my above keep vote. --Kbabej (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Statement on the Deletion of Dylan Geick from Max LaSalle (Instagram: @realmaxlasalle twitter: @realmaxlasalle): Dylan Geick's Wikipedia page should not be deleted. Why? Because he is a official public figure. He has tons of followers on Instagram and lots of subscribers on YouTube. He receives hundreds of view on his Wikipedia page (not anymore sense it's going into deletion). He also was and I believe he is still a wrestler that has a amazing run in the wrestling career and he is also a big public figure in the LGBT community. Why would we want to delete his page. There is just simply no reason and no true un-biased facts into why his Wikipedia page should be deleted. 2600:8800:2F08:7700:A1DF:F6BE:3169:5264 (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Max LaSalle[reply]

• Sorry, who are you and how did you find out about this? --
  (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• What official grants the status of an "official public figure"? And the accusation of bias is unfounded. I can only believe that you mean bias against gay people, but, in my experience, gay people are not underrepresented on Wikipedia in the way that other groups who are disadvantaged in the Anglophone West certainly are.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong Delete. This article exists because an iNfLuEnceR is trying to get verified on instagram. He’s on his Snapchat begging people to come here and say keep. This person is a fake author, a fake wrestler, a fake student, and buys fake followers. What has he done other than come out as gay... take his shirt off on ig? Is wiki this easy to manipulate? I’m sorry I don’t know the lingo. I tried to do the right format. 2600:1012:B02D:536B:54B1:EBBA:B499:9007 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Andrew Williams[reply]

• Question? Also who are you and where did you hear about this? Please elaborate on snapchatWilliamsdoritios (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: See also
  Early Works: A Collection of Poetry created by User:MarkZusab on 2019-01-29 and PRODded by User:Omaharodeo a couple of hours later. --Closeapple (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I agree
  Early Works: A Collection of Poetry should be deleted. It has not received any substantial coverage. The section in the subject's article is enough. --Kbabej (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Note: I created
  Early Works: A Collection of Poetry as a redirect and have merged the current content into Dylan Geick. MarkZusab (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - I agree that the poetry book article should be deleted because the mention on his own wiki page is enough... Williamsdoritios (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)..[reply]

• Comment Note: I created
  Early Works: A Collection of Poetry as a redirect and have merged the current content into Dylan Geick. MarkZusab (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Two of us have now spent significant time trying to improve this article, and I am more convinced than ever that it should be deleted (for the second time). It is plainly true that the subject's wrestling achievements and writing achievements are not notable. Beyond that, all we have is gossip about the subject's romantic life and social media follower counts (which are widely alleged to be inflated). The key sources are press releases and opinion columns which were not rigorously fact-checked. Omaharodeo (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You may have tried to improve the article but you have also removed multiple details, demanded that inline citations make the point of every detail of the article on the spot where the details are are. As there are parts of the article where the cittaion is listed further down as you have rearranged the article like a game of three card monte and then removed the notations for being redundant when trying to reprove the factual flow. This is the case with the Geick Keioch relationship you are so relentless I just left it alone... You have manicured every word here I guess you feel if you can deneuter every last detail you can prove it is non-notable you know whatever.. The truth is he has a large social media presence. He is visibly involved in activism at this point and his story has been covered by multiple national outlets which you are intent on proving are not actually that. Williamsdoritios (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; the subject doesn't appear to meet the various notability criteria, and I also note an issue where it seems the subject is canvassing off-Wikipedia for support to keep his page. --
  (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment -
  User:NoCOBOL it is your choice and right to vote for deletion, however, the fact that there are two seemingly ridiculously worded vote summaries in the last round which mention instagram does not mean tbe subject is canvassing off wikipedia. The internet is a fluid place there are many people who follow the subject on social media some of those people know how to google and wikipedia is a huge site and many people wind up here. Of the two votes which mention offsite connections one is for keep and one is for delete.Williamsdoritios (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. You seem to be well connected with the subject. Could you tell us whether or not they have mentioned this deletion discussion in any way, perhaps in a way that could be construed as canvassing, perhaps not. --
  (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - Listen you mean well abreasted not well connected and I have not seen or heard of any such thing. Further people are free beings that can mention all they want and the people who are mentioning those sites don't seem to be writing their arguements at a very high level. Personally I am really tired of all this nonsense blasted nonsense the internet is fluid. Williamsdoritios (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, I meant what I said. Also, you can indent your posts with : or * --
  (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete “College wrestler is gay” is not enough to meet notability standards no matter how popular he may be on the Internet. This is
  too soon. Trillfendi (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - I'm done here . I leave his page to its fate whatever that maybe. If he is too soon in the vwords of Morrissey
  How Soon is NowWilliamsdoritios (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Sufficient coverage has not been shown to satisfy the
  Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - If a page is systematically destructured of course it reads as non-notable.. I will say this though the fact that the subject jumps from one endeavor to the other does reduce the notability thread.Williamsdoritios (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My comment was in no way based on the current state of the article, but on the totality of reliable sources that have been presented or that I can find myself.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete promotional article about a wannabe Instagram influencer, college athlete and self-published author.
  π, ν) 05:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Spent time tidying up this discussion for indentations and to clarify which are comment points so that it can be read easily (I have not touched any actual text). There is just not enough to confirm GNG. There are bits and pieces, but nothing that you can definitively point to. Perhaps this will change in the future and he will increase notability, but more would be required in terms of significant independent
  WP:RS discussing him. If a new article re-appears with no improvement in RS, it should be speedily deleted. Britishfinance (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Tribune coverage is not actually from Chicago Tribune but local sources that fall under
  WP:GNG--it's the "Up Next" section. Canvassing or not, the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. agtx 21:42, 12 February 2019 (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.