Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low Tier God

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Star Mississippi 03:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Low Tier God

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Low Tier God (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)

1. The page does not establish notability for the subject. All sources tangentially mention it. 2. This page also appears to be a frequent target of vandalism by malicious actors. The subject has entered the page's talk page to request deletion before, which is not trivial per

WP:BLP
. 3. The article's apparent notability comes from the subject having a YouTube channel, but they have been permanently removed from the platform as of December of last year. My tightness (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Reporter has it as Dalauan. Also, please refrain from making assumed negative comments about people, even outside of mainspace articles. Someone claiming to be the subject has already requested deletion, so I somehow doubt what you said is the case. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with the admins that this doesn't meet G10. In my opinion Why? I Ask seems to have misunderstood the meaning of an attack page and incorrectly applied G10 to LTG's page. Reading this discussion, Why? I Ask asserts that the page serves as an attack page because most of the content disparages him in some way, only focusing on the negative aspects of him as a person and YouTuber. Looking at the previous revisions of his article that don't involve obviously reverted vandalism, the closest claim I could find that was arguably disparaging was one of him being notorious for quitting games in anger. Although it came from the unreliable source Looper, that claim isn't inherently negative in that it was meant to insult him, but rather represent a reflection of his reputation from the world at large. If more reliable sources existed that discussed his notorious reputation in this manner - like Kotaku, Polygon or even newspapers like The New York Times - this wouldn't be an issue; the claim could work as attribution where it's clearly the opinion and/or analysis of the journalists working for such outlets. If you're arguing that the article's contents attack his character because reliable sources have referred to him only in a negative light, please see
    WP:BIASED
    . At most, this problem with the article's focus on negative events is merely an example of due and undue weight. If more reliable sources note and analyze his negative reputation than not, that just means it's a majority viewpoint in line with due weight, not an attempt to demean or harass him. A genuine attack page would be, well, an attack page. It would contain unsourced, bad faith insults about his character akin to an Encyclopedia Dramatica page where every sentence in the article reads less like an informative article and more like cyberbullying.
In general, plenty of BLPs of controversial beings exist in Wikipedia that meet the notability guidelines in spite of their reputation, because they have reliable sources discussing them significantly. That's what separates them from Low Tier God. The problem with this article shouldn't be whether the content is a wholly negative attack page because he's a controversial figure. Rather, the main issue is the lack of reliable sources that actually discuss him significantly as a controversial figure. In that regard, I agree that he may not meet the notability guidelines. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a lack of reliable sources, then (for BLPs) there's no sources. In the Polygon or Vice, they are single-sentence mentions. That's not enough to include something contentious in a BLP. Sure, I'm not against saying Hitler was evil because the sources are there. But this fellow is only famous (in reliable sources at least) for exceedingly minor controversies. (Not that I am trying to downplay his poor actions, but in the grand scheme of things...) You cannot have a page on a BLP that is only poorly covered controversies. That's an attack page if I ever. And when it comes to Wikipedia articles on minor internet celebrities, you better believe I am going to be liberal when applying G10. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking into the person i can't find anything that really makes him a notable person outside of the video game community on Youtube and even with in that his notability appears limited to supposed controversies and the people that enjoyes indulging themselves in such things.Halmstad (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Low_Tier_God&oldid=1142194935"