Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Shroyer

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. While sources exists, consensus seems to be they lack the depth of coverage needed to meet our notability standards. NeilN talk to me 21:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Shroyer

Owen Shroyer (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)

An Infowars "journalist". The first eight pages of Google showed nothing that could be used as a

WP:BLP1E territory, if that. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Article from Evening Standard, Daily Mail & book reference also aren't trivial.
There's little doubt he's a rising star of the alt right.
We may not agree with him, but I'd say he's definitely notable, and someone people will be looking up... Wiki page stats show this isn't a dead page. I can't stand him but still contributed to the page (from the UK) because of the buzz around him here.
22:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.190.189 (talk) — 80.193.190.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Wikipedia is full of deleted articles on people who are "rising". We have articles once they have risen. And I'm in the UK, what "buzz" are you talking about? Admittedly I never read the Daily Heil. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
His show was Twitter UK's chosen live stream for the Alabama elections. Weekday live show (from the little I've seen) seems to average around 10K viewers. He's also been named in the Scottish Herald, Boston Globe, NY Mag, The Guardian and My Statesman. When a name is being used in newspaper articles like that, I do expect to be able to look up who I'm reading about! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.239.206.125 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 02:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 02:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 02:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 02:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 02:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • That example is about InfoWars, not Owen Shroyer, and contains no information about him other than that he narrated a video, so does not constitute significant coverage of Shroyer. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 23:28, 26 December 2017‎ Keep He genuinely meets the notability criteria as well as being subject of discussion in various reliable sources. This shouldn't even be a contentious issue. Changing to delete out of protest. LaceyUF (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC) — LaceyUF (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Not true, I am an IP editor who only decided to log into a non-IP account so that I could comment on this AFD from a normal wikipedia account which I thought had a longer edit history than what it turned out having. See my talk page or read the ani for details. LaceyUF (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you edit while logged out to avoid scrutiny of your edits, as it appears you have done, you can hardly take credit for those edits when it's convenient for you to do so. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, your editing is limited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. I'm taking the high road on this one. LaceyUF (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CU blocked socks. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep I created this page after seeing a number of people I "follow" on Twitter discussing Owen and his work during his Alabama coverage. I apologise if I didn't use the best references - there were so many others I could have used but I chose the ones that I considered best out of the many pages and search results I came across "at the top" of Google. I realise much of this may be "self-generated", but there was equally genuine external coverage (both positive and negative). It is the first page I've created and any feedback on how I can improve it much appreciated.
    XfD. - edits match 80.193.190.189, may be a duplicate !vote.[reply
    ]
  • Keep As above. 80.193.190.189 (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC) — 80.193.190.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Seems like a well-balanced and sourced article about a figure who's meeting genuine notability requirements. Can understand why someone may want it deleted, maybe put the page under protection for the vandalism that's almost bound to follow? Jacquimunroe (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC) — Jacquimunroe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Oscar's Oasis (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This IP is from an open proxy. (I’m
    talk) 03:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
string of 6 delete votes in under 6 hours? How is the ani discussion not seen as blatant canvassing? nobody likes sockpuppets but what's worse is the shady tactics by people who game the system. good riddance, LaceyUF (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posting a report of evident (and now proven) sockpuppetry on a public noticeboard is not canvassing. When an attempt at stuffing the ballot box via sockpuppetry is detected by the Wikipedia community, a frequent autoimmune response is for editors in good standing, who have now had their attention drawn to the issue, to examine the dispute and, usually, simply vote the other way that the sockpuppets voted. (In general, if you need sockpuppetry to survive, you probably don't have policy behind you anyway.) In this way, organized sockpuppetry campaigns are disincentivized because when and if they are discovered, they will not only fail but
intentionally disrupt the encyclopedia for personal self-aggrandizement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Well that was a refreshingly honest reply. So what then am I to do when I vote on an AFD (see here) and then out of nowhere all this chaos/drama ensues over the past 48 hours? You seem to be aboveboard; and we both know how this AFD will end. Assuming a case could be made in favor of Owen Shroyer's notability, am I correct in my assessment that now isn't the time? LaceyUF (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Then there is Owen Shroyer. He is a Texan native and an anchor at InfoWars, a swivel-eyed, conspiratorial news website that has been called “fake news”. He was recruited off the back of a YouTube series, where he would posit emphatic conservative observations about organisations such as the Clinton Foundation.".

"Shroyer is a disciple. When Jones was impugned by “four different sources” including comedian Seth Meyers and US cable television network CSPAN, Shroyer uploaded a video to his YouTube account, where he has almost 19,000 subscribers, defending Jones."

"Shroyer has 13,000 followers on Twitter and his pinned tweet is a quasi-poem which reads, “Go Trump go!/Go Trump go!/Hey America, what do you say? Trump is going to win today!”. It has been liked 1,200 times and retweeted 447 times."

"The new lexicon": "The movement has its own language and rhetorical style. There are keywords like “cuck”, which — in Shroyer’s words — refers to “someone who is weak-minded or will kowtow to whatever authority says. They’re never gonna question anything and they’re never gonna look into anything for themselves.” Shroyer’s fans call him the “cuck destroyer”.

"On Twitter, Shroyer attaches the hashtag #helltothenaw to liberal opinions with which he disagrees; spelling “no” as “naw” suggests a Rust Belt dialect — the white, working-class areas where Trump picked up much of his support."

"He also uses words like “wussification” (“The wussification of America ends now,” he tweeted. “You want a safe space? Stay home. #americaisback”). It speaks to the masculinity of the Trump movement. "

We can certainly delete the entry because we don't like the subject or because his supporters came out to vote for keeping the article, but it's false to say this provocateur and conspiracy monger hasn't been covered substantially in a wide variety of reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
bare minimum above. If we decide notability by news like this, only few people will not have article on Wikipedia. Ammarpad (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
St.Louis Dispatch, Salon article, Daily Dot, AOL, The Tab, Slate, Bustle, VOX, CNN, Vice, Austin American Statesman, and extensive coverage in Evening Standard piece quoted above. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose we accept that Evening Standard article as substantial coverage—which, I'm not sure I do, but we'll suppose so for now. What could his article contain? Basically all it does already, which is fleeting coverage of a couple of one-off events. Quasi-stub. ETA: Really it would be aspiring for stub status. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article should state who he is and what he does. It should note that he's developed a following on various interweb venues as well as the controversies he's been involved in. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These trivial, passing mentions establish that he wears racist t-shirts and that he got laughed at by a little girl. FloridaArmy, it seems you like to blow up everything, but "controversy" is an overused word, and the GNG requires "significant coverage"--not a bunch of "look at this fucking idiot" mentions on websites. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems like a very reasonable suggestion. I was unaware there wasn't an entry for InfoWars. I have expanded it with content from this entry and redirecting this entty there seems a reasonable outcome. 15:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Although it seems like an awful lot to merge..? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to merge everything. --J04n(talk page) 15:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete, User:Malinaccier's argument has engendered some last-minute discussion which I don't want to cut off. So I'm relisting this to give people a chance to respond fully to User:Malinaccier
.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a total lack of the sustained, indepth third party coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He had had a fair bit of coverage (mainly over being sworn at by a kind , bit others stuff as well). But there is not a great deal here really.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep Article needs improvement to stand alone and more references. However if so many people voting to delete this have heard of him and know enough to have an opinion on, by implication, it suggests he is notable even if currently lacking in publicity outside of IW.Wikizenx (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)— Wikizenx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Not one of the people supporting deletion has stated having heard of this person before taking part in this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had not heard of him before dropping in either. But no, it's not relevant. Malinaccier (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are asking me, as implied by the indentation, then my comment was perfectly relevant because it responded directly to a statement by Wikizenx. It is that original statement that is irrelevant. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The short namechecks in a handful of sources do not meet the notability requirements of the Wikipedia. One does not get famous or notable for a series of "says a stupid thing, a source or two calls what he says stupid:, rinse and repeat, there has to be pierces that discuss the person in-depth. Otherwise its just a hagiography for his fans and a dartbord for his critics. TheValeyard (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2017 (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/Owen_Shroyer&oldid=1171744839"