Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizzy

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. There is a clear consensus to delete here. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mizzy

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

Mizzy (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)

Subject fails

promote the subject is concerning. (see article edit history) 4meter4 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. (as article creator). Page does seem to be a magnet for both
WP:BEFORE search would indicate significant coverage in BBC News as recently as yesterday, so I disagree there is a "flurry" of coverage, coverage is very much ongoing. I watch the article carefully and have removed any tabloid stuff (there is plenty). Notability is establised by non tabloid press such as BBC News, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Spectator
and more, that high quality sourcing is already in the article.
Considering
Routine coverage
, also nope, the subject making headlines, the coverage is not routine, as per our definition. 3 - Who's Who which excludes people for one event and such like, this guy is notable for lots of events, 4 - Gossip and diary stuff, there is high quality reporting and analysis about the subject. Any careful reading of the policy would not support deletion.
WP:NOTBLP1E
for more)
None of this matters less than the key thing:
WP:THREE
here's three sources that should make that utterly clear:
  1. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/06/disturbing-rise-mizzy-tiktok-culture
  2. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-65700125
  3. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/talktv-andre-walker-mizzy-b2351193.html
Of course, none of these paint the guy in a good light, but that's besides the point. He is exceptionally notable. With BBC coverage as recent as yesterday, we should not
WP:RUSHDELETE CT55555(talk) 18:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete Article is largely a negative portrayal of him, for doing "things" and getting in trouble with the law over these "things" he did. I wouldn't say that satisfied BLPCRIME, rest of his career seems not notable. It comes down to "guy does stupid stuff online and gets arrested, banned from social media". Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Family life is a small section, then the next section, then a looooong list of stuff he did and got arrested for. Being stupid online doesn't really make him notable. Could be seen as an attempt to shame the individual or as an attack page. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Oaktree has mentioned that the page is largely a negative portrayal of him, edit history shows this page as being in a constant edit war, including from Mizzy himself along with several sockpuppet accounts of his friends, constantly trying to add pages for his friends and even add advertisements for Mizzy's spotify and t-shirt websites. Mizzy is clearly aware of the negative image he has online, but is using this wikipedia article solely as a purpose to gain further online presence. In reality, he is not notable. Tiktok users such as Pinkydoll are much more notable online, and even their pages are being discussed for deletion. Having random articles about your arrest don't make you notable. Matan Even, the "Bill Clinton" game awards crasher, has several articles written about him, including several from this week alone, and he doesn't have a wikipedia page either. Don't let Mizzy just get away with using wikipedia for free ads. 2600:1700:89C6:2000:84CE:DEC9:9C9D:8543 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)— User:2600:1700:89C6:2000:84CE:DEC9:9C9D:8543 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep No shortage of articles regarding this internet personality - from The Guardian to The Independent to the BBC to, yes, The Daily Mail. Current delete votes seem to be factoring in quality of the page (or the individual the article is on) rather than determining notability. As in, simply because a youtuber is famous for "doing things and getting arrested", that does not discount valid coverage of them. Essentially, we can not use personal judgements regarding if coverage is about 'important stuff' or not (certainly many academic fields lack in practical importance, but there's no shortage of articles regarding fairly minor mathematicians and philosophers). The page is undoubtedly a bit of a mess, but that is also not grounds for deletion in any way. Page should likely be trimmed and potentially protected in order to prevent further abuse by both fans and opponents of this youtuber. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:Biographies of Living People which are more stringent that GNG.4meter4 (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I mentioned above the BBC News coverage yesterday. Please also note coverage in Ireland last week and in Wales, yesterday
I find the suggestion that coverage all happened in one month, and that it was all related to one event, odd. Coverage is ongoing, spans many months and several events. CT55555(talk) 13:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either 1E applies here but primary and routine coverage are explicitly excluded from establishing notability, regardless of whether they're independent or reliable. All of the coverage you've linked to far is both.. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please say more about how you think Jason Okundaye's analysis in The Guardian, the BBC News reporting and the piece in The Independent are primary sources and routine?
WP:ROUTINE
is defined as such things as announcements...Planned coverage of scheduled events...Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions...sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc.
I ask, because I feel confident you are mistaken on both counts. CT55555(talk) 16:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no analysis at all, so I can't say anything about the analysis. As for routineness, click the wikilink that says "Per Wikipedia policy". The relevant part is For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion.
PST of OR links to the essay Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, which has the section "Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources?" Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC) corrected typo 04:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Though reading that bit again, it does seem to cover crime logs as well, cf also
WP:NCRIME. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry, I don't know what the various acronyms you are using mean ("PST", "OS", "cf") so that is somewhat hindering my ability to understand you here.
I think most people understand crime logs to be daily reports from police stations or or police forces with basic details of crimes. I think they are list or database entries with brief details. This is significantly and materially different from in depth reporting about single examples of alleged criminality in reliable and independent sources.
WP:PRIMARYNEWS
is an essay that argues that breaking news should be considered "primary" and notes "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad". Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources." I don't consider this essay to be aligned with common consensus at AFD discussions where independent sources like BBC News, The Guardian etc tend to be viewed as optimal sources. Nonetheless, it seems like a moot point when even the essay does't argue against using such sources. Even still, The Guardian piece is not a breaking news story, but a piece of analysis. If we were to discount most news sources on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia would be a radically different from how it actually is.
WP:ATD. CT55555(talk) 19:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
NEWSORG, again, not explicitly stating it) or a RFC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
three very solid articles from @CT55555
, along with articles regarding the individual over the course of a year - and then say "Well, not those.".... I'm just not quite sure what would satisfy your criteria or why the bar would be set so high for this article in particular. These sources alone confer more verifiable notability than, I'm going to say conservatively, 90% of biographical pages on Wikipedia. I'm not even sure what the "singular topic" being covered here is, as there's a laundry list of items in this page. The break in? The Piers Morgan interview? "His content" as a whole?
I don't want to come off as harsh, but I'm having a hard time understanding the general 'pitch' of this AfD. A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:TABLOID press; even if found in normally reputable sources. This is a routine news cycle for sensational stories of this kind as not enough time has passed to indicate notability. We would need to see SUSTAINED covered (i.e a year or longer) that is not superficial (and these are) with neutral reporting (which these are not) that isn't sensational and designed to be click bait. When normally reputable media start publishing and behaving like disreputable media that is exactly when we need to crack the whip and enforce our BLP policy language and use good editorial judgement. A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@4meter4 I'm sorry my friend, but saying that coverage from legitimate sources, with legitimate subject matters that explore the subject in depth like The Guardian's "The disturbing rise of Mizzy: this is what happens when culture values nothing but attention" - as well as a smattering of other sources, are not something I am willing to write off or even consider for a moment as "essentially Tabloid press... even if found in normally reputable sources". I'm not really sure how I would come to that. The shoe simply doesn't fit. This is not celebrity gossip, there is no gossip occurring here. Setting arbitrary boundaries that happen to be right outside what the individual of this article possesses come off asinine and just kind of like trying to do acrobatics in order to justify the AfD rather than it being abundantly clear deletion is warrented ("Oh well sure coverage lasts for about a year... but I'd like to see it last for a year or longer..." "Sure he has 3 or 4 good articles from reputable sources but... what if they were more reputable? I'm not actually going to count a few of them this time. Could we get 6 or 7?"). I'm poking some fun at you here which I hope you don't mind, but you can see my point. Beccanyr's main concerns seems to be that this article is some hit piece on the subject - but that doesn't come across to me and overwhelmingly the page and citations within it are just providing raw facts about the individual who in this case is primarily known for notoriety gaining acts. In summary, once we start to say "Oh the BBC is a source.. until I don't like it, in which case it's a sensationalist tabloid" we might as well bin the website. Again, I apologize for any harshness but I have yet to see what I consider a solid argument for deletion and remain rather immutable here. Cheers either way. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are policy-based, including as broadly stated in the introduction section of the
not encyclopedic. Beccaynr (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I said already, but with regards to if the coverage is sustained, there was BBC coverage six days ago. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66607521.
I find the reference to opinion pieces difficult. In other discussions people argue to delete when there is purely news coverage, saying that if there was analysis they would !vote to keep. And here we have analysis. I see pieces like the guardian as a good indicator of notability.
I agree that wikipedia is not a tabloid. I see how LBC is borderline, but the article is written from reliable sources and I don't see this article as spreading "titillating claims about people's lives". (emphasis on claims mine) instead it is doing what wikipedia should do, relaying neutrally facts reported in BBC News etc. I don't think this is titillating, I don't think the sources are tabloid (1 source, LBC maybe), I don't think the content is about "claims". CT55555(talk) 12:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, available coverage does not establish a notable social media career for O'Garro before or independently of the pending allegations of criminal conduct and various related court proceedings, including some based on what appears to be a 2022 juvenile court proceeding, which is also publicized in this article. And now, due to various social media bans, to the extent there is coverage, it appears focused on e.g. brief round-ups of low-level criminal allegations such as the BBC report linked above.
O'Garro appears to have primarily had a brief burst of sensationalized attention from e.g.
WP:COATRACK about the BBC being criticized for what the article describes as "interviewing O'Garro to boost view numbers" [5] (aka sensationalism); O'Garro getting 'screamed at' on TalkTV in June [6]; the article also suggests an opinion piece from The Spectator [7] "praised" O'Garro [8], but it actually includes: "He does not deserve to become rich and famous off the back of his appalling conduct but his 15 minutes of fame should remind us that we are a long way as a society from harnessing the potential of all our citizens. He must do better but we can do better too."
So for this article, for this subject, notability does not appear supported by reports of allegations and criminal proceedings, two thinkpieces about culture and society, and three interviews, including one criticized for apparent sensationalism, another by Piers Morgan, and one where O'Garro is, according to the article, told by the interviewer, "You glared at her in a threatening fashion. You do that again, I'll drag you out by the hair." What appears to be missing are sources that permit the development of an encyclopedic article that is compliant with the letter and spirit (to borrow a phrase from Alexandermcnabb) of BLP policy; and whether according to NOTNEWS, NOTSCANDAL, or NOTPROMO, the short burst of attention, the basis for that attention, and the nature of the coverage further appears to support deletion at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Personally, I think Mizzy is a low profile individual and likely to remain so. Having a brief period of fame for low level crime stunts does not indicate lasting notability on wikipedia or longterm significance (ie "high profile" attention) in the real world. I very much doubt the world will be paying attention after these criminal charges have worked there way through the court system, and its likely he will go into obscurity.4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOWPROFILE
is only an essay, but it is widely used at AFD to help us decide if someone is high or low profile. People who take part in media interviews, self-publicity are never considered low-profile in my experience at AFD.
WP:NOTTEMPORARY is a part of a guideline and is clear: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. CT55555(talk) 16:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, this user is low-profile and has no lasting notability except from a few random stunts. This does not meet BLPCRIME and therefore should be delete — Karnataka talk 21:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you have not participated in many BLP1E discussions at AFD. Metaphorically, read the temperature of the room. I think you will find that at AFD we do require longterm coverage of BLPs when evaluating BLP1E particularly in relation to crime; see
WP:CRIME where it clearly states under our policy for perpetrators: "Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. It's a standard measuring stick and this is policy; not an essay.4meter4 (talk
)
  • Delete. Per
    WP:BLP1E specifically does not apply here, subjects must meet all 3 criteria, and this subject does not meet If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.. I appreciate the folks trying to improve the article from a valid BIO/BIO1E perspective, but I think BLP and CRIME override that here. —siroχo 03:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. I originally closed this discussion as "Delete" but it was brought to my attention that I made a talk page remark back in May about this article subject that shows a lack of neutrality on my part. I had forgotten about my remarks but agree that I should revert my closure and allow an uninvolved closer to review this discussion. My apologies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you can state that...? The consensus above is that the subject does not pass SUSTAINED which is a policy that requires "longterm coverage" (ie coverage across time). That hasn't been demonstrated with this subject and the RS evidence which is all from a very short window of time.4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sources don't meet the standard at
WP:BLPs in relation to crime is more stringent than GNG under other policy guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 10 September 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/Mizzy&oldid=1174937290"