975:
debated). There were a few contested deletion comments in the tallk page as well, which had weight. Now, its a discussion of notability and whether or not it should stay, with half saying that this is a perrenial proposal that should remain out of mainspace (due to good faith being depleted by past fanboy behavior before notability wwas achieved to
Knowledge standards), and another half saying that notability has been achieved and that an article is now warranted due to his involvement in various ventures with increased independent stature from before. Never the less, the bar still appears to be higher due to fanboy behavior, which should not be a factor in 2022 for this subject, per Hobit. I'm hoping the end result is that the article remains up (as it looks satisfactory to me and established citation norms); and upon this discussion being closed, I intend on re-opening my previously in-progress move discussion, should that be necessary. "And the band played on" is the type of example that should expire and no longer matter after certain conditions have been met, and I think this example has met that criteria, coming from someone who stumbled upon this case in 2022 and had knowledge of the subject both before and after the notibility criteria were met. :)
558:
owner of a McDonald’s franchise in
Wyoming could ever get such a match. Deji has though. Because he has established notability. Are all the Endorse voters forgetting about GNG here?! Good Grief! I agree that not every million+ YouTuber is notable enough, but sometimes it’s taken too far with things like this, because when someone actually has demonstrated such notability, Wikipedians often appears reluctant and ignorant to actually recognize that notability. If a notable headlining boxing match with its own event article is not grounds establishing notability for creation of a BLP, then what the fuck is??? Honestly. This appears to be a case of crazed fans attempting to make an article over a period of several years being held against a subject when notability is finally established for them, guilty because of the past instead of the present.
883:
I personally did not become involved with this
Knowledge saga involving an article for Deji at all until I stumbled on the mainspace article and submitted the move request shortly before the boxing match. In essence, consider me a Wikipedian who has been active for many years who stumbled upon this case and created this deletion review without realizing the extent of the prior saga of 25+ speedy deletions and hadn’t even been considering the prior AFDs in 2022 until a comment was made about them on the requested move and the G5 had occurred. :) For me, I was trying to figure out the best way to move forward and restore the article. Hopefully somebody who is familiar with the subject and has sufficient skill and reputation to bypss AFC can get it done, since I am too busy myself. cheers!
846:
not passing GNG (which they clearly do; any AFD for them will be SNOWed because they dont have fanboy article creations and deletions from before they were notable)? This is a classic example of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" on
Knowledge: when he finally is notable, the past reputation prevails. Knowledge's biases against YouTubers are showing clearly here. Disgusting. Shameful. I neither hold a COI, as a college student from California who has no personal association, nor am an Ultra, as I abide by Knowledge policies. I just know, given my YouTube expertise, that he is now notable for his independent ventures. While notability isn't inherent, he earned his notability himself despite being related and around other notable people regularly.
633:
deletion discussions, and until this deletion review came up I had no opinion whatsoever as to whether the subject is notable by
Knowledge standards, but I have now looked into it, and as far as I can see the claim that the subject of the article has now become more notable than at the times of those deletion discussions rests on the fact that he has once taken part in an "exhibition" boxing match. I have looked at the references cited for that match, both in the deleted article and in the article about the match. I don't see those references as providing convincing evidence that the match satisfies Knowledge's notability guidelines, and they don't come anywhere remotely near to indicating that "Deji" satisfies them.
348:
proposal. Recent events, such as facing
Mayweather (!!!!!!) have indicated that the notability has since been established after the fact of the AFDs. We should NOT be putting now-notable subjects into permanent deletion purgatory over some poorly created and sourced articles from YEARS ago from before they were notable enough for Knowledge.
882:
Ahhh, okay. I can actually agree with the assume good faith part in respect to others who have been involved with article creation of this subject. I do not condone it at all, and as such desire to distinguish myself from them. Although I’ve been watching KSI and Deji’s videos since my teenage years,
825:
You're probably right, although I suspect that "ultras" who are sufficiently ultra are indistinguishable from COI editors using our public processes. I dislike attempts to game the system from whatever source, and prefer notability arguments be coherent and sensible: "notable for being a YouTuber who
86:
currently applies, but it has been discovered that the article has already been deleted twice at AfD and apparently some 20+ times by other means under a multitude of titles. As a result, the community is frustrated with the many disruptive attempts to evade scrutiny and to game an article about this
954:
This article currently exists in main space now under this page title. It was tagged for CSD G4 deletion but I untagged it while this discussion is going on. Please consider what should happen with it, along with any drafts that exist. My only opinion is that I expect future attempts will be made at
744:
Because this isn't explicit in G4, I tend to prefer create protection (salting) rather than expanding the CSD in cases of repeated disruptive re-creation. We've seen things G4'ed that at least deserved another discussion, and our guidance has generally been "recreate it yourself if you've got better
347:
on my part that the actual article, at the time of the G5, although having a foundation with the draft, was heavily expanded upon entering the mainspace, such as having a furnished and up to date early life and YouTube career section, and as such the word "identical" has been struck through from the
845:
So if these "ultras" killed his notability if it otherwise would have been established had it not been for this extensive creation and deletion history of poorly sourced articles by these "ultras", then does that mean we should delete the articles for the Paul brothers and KSI (his brother) too for
632:
under several titles, not counting deletion of redirects following page moves. I very much doubt that I have ever seen any other example of anywhere near that many attempts to get an article established in the face of such unambiguous consensus that it isn't suitable. I took no part in any of those
193:
While this page was speedily deleted under G5, I strongly feel that was not the appropriate decision in that case, given that it wouldn't have been deleted if not for the G5. On the talk page, there was a move discussion in progress initiated by me, the subject meets the notability requirements now
557:
Clearly he wouldn’t have been positioned against
Mayweather if he wasn’t notable enough from YouTube and his activities with his brother and other YouTubers/media personalities to be placed in such a headlining match, regardless of if it was exhibition or professional. There’s no way a non-notable
974:
Since my previous comment; somebody (not banned) re-created the article in mainspace by updatimg the draft, thereby undoing the G5 (as the creator was not at all blocked or banned). Somebody then placed a G4, which was rescinded pending this discussion (as it has proven controversial and heavily
860:
I've on occasions opined the same way, but the deceptive way this case was presented drives my thinking: It's one thing for a petitioner to arrive with clean hands, and entirely another for them to arrive with intentionally deceptive behavior, on top of an extensive history of bad behavior from
600:
In the discussion above there seems to be some confusion between the issue of whether this deletion was justified and the issue of whether the article should now be allowed to be re-created. As far as my deletion is concerned, nobody has raised any objection to it apart from the totally bizarre
224:
As stated above this article is notable and should be allowed to be re-created by a non-banned user. So I think a speedy conversion of the draft is the most appropriate way to get this content into mainspace. With of course the old move discussion being called successful for this new article.
206:, which provided a foundation to the article as it appeared immediately before deletion. Either the deletion should be overruled and the move discussion should be closed as successful, or the draft should be speedily converted to an article and the article title is immediately unsalted.
369:
Also added AfD from 2020 at this title to header, which had not been done. I'll note that it included significant, identified sockpuppetry then. Not trying to ABF here, but this is not a pattern of behavior suggesting that mainspace-appropriateness has been established.
458:
Ahhh, gotcha. Wasn’t aware of that one. No objections to that one being listed, although it should definitely be noted that the
Mayweather fight hadn’t even been anywhere near announced yet at that point. (That AFD’s title also stylized YouTube incorrectly.)
407:
That's not your call to make. You claim to be protesting a G5 deletion, but the real problem here is a history of inappropriate creation, repeated deletion, and evasion of create protection, which your action served to obfuscate. So, I amend my opinion to
536:
to there too, or to the fight article. Not from this name, though; disambiguated names make for poor redirects. (And do we normally have articles for retired boxers' exhibition matches, anyway? Shouldn't that merit maybe a one-sentence mention in
304:
If it were only appropriate to delete pages as G5s if they would have been deleted anyway then we wouldn't have G5; that it was an unattributed copy of the draft version is all the more reason to delete it; and it's never been salted.
745:
sources now than at the time of deletion" because DRV is not a necessary stop when it's just a case of the deleted article being TOOSOON and now notability has been established since the correct-at-the -time deletion.
342:
The page in 2022 absolutely would NOT have been deleted if it hadn't been for whom created the article, causing the G5 to begin with when it otherwise wouldn't have happened. I should hereby issue this
649:
I very much doubt that I have ever seen any other example of anywhere near that many attempts to get an article established in the face of such unambiguous consensus that it isn't suitable.
908:) that probably get us past WP:N. The past behavior of superfans isn't an inclusion criteria. The question is if WP:N is passed. And I suspect it is, but that's for AfD to decide.
603:"While this page was speedily deleted under G5, I strongly feel that was not the appropriate decision in that case, given that it wouldn't have been deleted if not for the G5"
439:
625:
323:
617:
435:
176:
326:
at a (different) attempt at a scrutiny-avoiding title change. Most of the substantial coverage on the draft is years old. Endorse on all counts, don't unsalt. —
48:
34:
410:
Endorse, salt all remaining non-create-protected-titles, require AfC, and require all contributors to AfC to attest to no COI as part of the AfC approval process
861:
others with respect to this subject. So no, we're not saying "no article even if GNG pass," we're saying "AGF has been exhausted with respect to this subject."
680:
G5 but it also could easily have been G4. There is consensus Deji isn't notable. If a redirect is created, it should be protected to prevent backdoor creation.
621:
319:
605:... ???? Well, if we can't speedily delete a page under a particular deletion criterion if it wouldn't be deleted if it weren't for that criterion, then when
905:
43:
726:
I believe there's a point like BDI above where when there's continued out of process re-creation, G4 gets broadened. I may be incorrect on that though.
702:
I disagree with the G4 assessment as the listed AFDs all have occurred in March 2022 or earlier and there is significant content (at least on the
164:
934:
88:
521:
39:
393:
I have removed that from the header in good faith, as it is the G5 speedy deletion being contested, NOT that AFD from years ago.
185:
195:
21:
782:
in order to get an article into article space, they have ensured that there will never be an article in article space.
484:
480:
706:) based on events from later in 2022, making it not "substantially identical to the deleted version" as G4 requires.
505:
194:
as opposed to when prior AFDs had occurred towards the subject years ago, and this occurred in the aftermath of the
733:
687:
662:
513:
995:
816:
787:
584:
517:
114:
17:
509:
771:
652:
955:
creating an article on this subject, it's just a question of in what namespace and under which page titles.
984:
966:
946:
917:
892:
870:
855:
835:
820:
791:
754:
739:
721:
693:
668:
642:
588:
567:
545:
491:
468:
446:
421:
402:
379:
357:
330:
309:
295:
260:
234:
215:
103:
980:
888:
851:
714:
563:
464:
398:
353:
288:
253:
211:
134:
501:
198:
fight on Sunday. The article was very well sourced, although I should note that I have found out that an
728:
682:
657:
497:
812:
783:
580:
538:
431:
130:
70:
703:
476:
277:
230:
203:
866:
831:
779:
750:
417:
375:
976:
884:
847:
709:
559:
460:
394:
349:
283:
248:
207:
942:
930:
808:
775:
913:
487:. I'll see if I can come up with a blacklist regex without too many false positives. —
226:
94:
877:
862:
827:
804:
800:
746:
638:
533:
413:
388:
371:
315:
272:
87:
topic into
Knowledge, and decides to keep the article deleted. People point out that
807:
disclosures is pro forma. These editors are not acting like COI editors, but like
552:
542:
488:
453:
443:
337:
327:
306:
242:
No issue with this (or any G5 page) being recreated by any user in good standing.
83:
79:
938:
609:
we ever speedily delete a page? I don't think I need to say any more about that.
909:
612:
As far as the issue of allowing re-creation is concerned, the article has
957:
634:
595:
I deleted the article, and for what it's worth here are my thoughts.
655:
and its edit filters and salt collection? It has good company
525:
778:, have been their own worst enemy. By repeatedly trying to
171:
157:
149:
141:
440:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Comedy Shorts Gamer
826:also got into boxing" doesn't cohere, in my mind.
496:And there've also been article-length versions at
626:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Oladeji Olatunji
324:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Oladeji Olatunji
618:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Deji (YouTuber)
803:, but with a comment that the requirement for
622:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Deji Olatunji
320:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Deji Olatunji
8:
113:The following is an archived debate of the
579:if this is an appeal of the G5 deletion.
63:
648:
616:been deleted at deletion discussions:
524:exists as a redirect to his brother,
430:Also a March 2022 afd and salting at
7:
78:There is no clear consensus whether
998:of the page listed in the heading.
532:... see a case for a redirect from
935:User:JzG/And the band played on...
244:No opinion regarding a title move.
89:User:JzG/And the band played on...
28:
770:- This is another case, like the
522:Comedy Shorts Gamer (entertainer)
485:Deji Olatunji (Comedyshortsgamer)
481:Deji Olatunji (ComedyShortsGamer)
994:The above is an archive of the
904:. There are new sources (e.g.
506:ComedyShortsGamer (Entertainer)
475:Three more deleted versions at
438:), plus another ancient one at
704:current version in draft space
276:and move content currently in
1:
985:03:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
967:20:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
947:09:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
918:16:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
893:22:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
871:22:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
856:20:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
836:20:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
821:19:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
792:18:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
755:22:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
740:21:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
722:19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
694:18:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
669:18:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
643:16:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
589:07:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
568:08:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
546:07:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
492:06:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
469:06:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
447:06:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
422:15:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
403:06:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
380:05:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
358:06:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
331:04:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
310:04:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
296:14:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
261:03:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
235:22:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
216:21:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
196:Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Deji
104:09:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
514:ComedyShortsGamer (Youtuber)
774:, where fanatical fans, or
651:may I introduce you to the
630:at least twenty eight times
518:ComedyShortsGamer(YouTuber)
1021:
628:, and it has been deleted
314:Aha, I see now that it's
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1001:Please do not modify it.
929:all the drafts, list at
510:ComedyShortsGamer (Deji)
120:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
772:Battle for Dream Island
653:Battle for Dream Island
318:that's salted, after
923:Endorse/keep deleted
614:at least three times
539:Floyd Mayweather Jr.
204:Draft: Deji Olatunji
502:Comedy shorts gamer
278:Draft:Deji Olatunji
117:of the page above.
269:On second thought
76:Deletion endorsed.
1008:
1007:
498:Comedyshortsgamer
102:
1012:
1003:
965:
881:
738:
736:
731:
720:
717:
712:
692:
690:
685:
667:
665:
660:
556:
457:
392:
341:
294:
291:
286:
259:
256:
251:
240:Allow recreation
222:Allow recreation
202:draft exists at
188:
183:
174:
160:
152:
144:
122:
101:
99:
92:
64:
59:15 November 2022
53:
49:2022 November 16
35:2022 November 14
33:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1011:
1010:
1009:
999:
996:deletion review
956:
875:
813:Robert McClenon
784:Robert McClenon
734:
729:
727:
715:
710:
707:
688:
683:
681:
663:
658:
656:
581:Robert McClenon
550:
451:
432:Deji (Youtuber)
386:
335:
289:
284:
281:
254:
249:
246:
184:
182:
179:
170:
169:
163:
156:
155:
148:
147:
140:
139:
131:Deji (YouTuber)
118:
115:deletion review
95:
93:
71:Deji (YouTuber)
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1018:
1016:
1006:
1005:
990:
989:
988:
987:
969:
949:
933:, and re-read
920:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
840:
839:
838:
794:
780:game the title
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
697:
696:
674:
673:
672:
671:
610:
597:
596:
592:
591:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
494:
473:
472:
471:
436:AfD discussion
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
301:
300:
299:
298:
264:
263:
237:
191:
190:
180:
167:
161:
153:
145:
137:
125:
124:
109:
108:
107:
106:
91:applies here.
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1017:
1004:
1002:
997:
992:
991:
986:
982:
978:
973:
970:
968:
964:
962:
961:
953:
950:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
928:
924:
921:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
900:
894:
890:
886:
879:
874:
873:
872:
868:
864:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
844:
841:
837:
833:
829:
824:
823:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
801:User:Jclemens
798:
795:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
766:
765:
756:
752:
748:
743:
742:
741:
737:
732:
725:
724:
723:
719:
718:
713:
705:
701:
700:
699:
698:
695:
691:
686:
679:
676:
675:
670:
666:
661:
654:
650:
646:
645:
644:
640:
636:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
608:
604:
599:
598:
594:
593:
590:
586:
582:
578:
575:
569:
565:
561:
554:
549:
548:
547:
544:
541:, at most?) —
540:
535:
534:Deji Olatunji
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
493:
490:
486:
482:
478:
477:Deji olatunji
474:
470:
466:
462:
455:
450:
449:
448:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
423:
419:
415:
411:
406:
405:
404:
400:
396:
390:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
377:
373:
368:
365:
359:
355:
351:
346:
339:
334:
333:
332:
329:
325:
321:
317:
316:Deji Olatunji
313:
312:
311:
308:
303:
302:
297:
293:
292:
287:
279:
275:
274:
273:Deji Olatunji
268:
267:
266:
265:
262:
258:
257:
252:
245:
241:
238:
236:
232:
228:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
187:
178:
173:
166:
159:
151:
143:
136:
132:
129:
128:
127:
126:
123:
121:
116:
111:
110:
105:
100:
98:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
44:2022 November
41:
36:
23:
19:
1000:
993:
977:DrewieStewie
971:
959:
958:
951:
926:
922:
901:
885:DrewieStewie
848:DrewieStewie
842:
796:
767:
708:
677:
629:
613:
606:
602:
576:
560:DrewieStewie
529:
528:. I can...
461:DrewieStewie
409:
395:DrewieStewie
366:
350:DrewieStewie
344:
282:
270:
247:
243:
239:
221:
208:DrewieStewie
199:
192:
119:
112:
96:
75:
69:
58:
902:send to AfD
735:Mississippi
689:Mississippi
664:Mississippi
412:. Cheers,
345:Correction
97:Sandstein
931:WP:DEEPER
322:and then
227:Paulpat99
200:identical
878:Jclemens
863:Jclemens
828:Jclemens
747:Jclemens
624:, &
414:Jclemens
389:Jclemens
372:Jclemens
20: |
972:Comment
952:Comment
843:Comment
768:Comment
678:Endorse
577:Endorse
553:Cryptic
543:Cryptic
489:Cryptic
454:Cryptic
444:Cryptic
367:Endorse
338:Cryptic
328:Cryptic
307:Cryptic
280:there.
271:unsalt
186:restore
150:history
939:Stifle
927:delete
809:ultras
797:Concur
776:ultras
716:Anchor
516:, and
483:, and
290:Anchor
255:Anchor
910:Hobit
799:with
711:Frank
530:maybe
285:Frank
250:Frank
172:watch
165:links
84:WP:G5
80:WP:G4
52:: -->
16:<
981:talk
943:talk
914:talk
906:this
889:talk
867:talk
852:talk
832:talk
817:talk
788:talk
751:talk
730:Star
684:Star
659:Star
647:Re:
639:talk
585:talk
564:talk
465:talk
418:talk
399:talk
376:talk
354:talk
231:talk
212:talk
158:logs
142:edit
135:talk
32:<
811:.
805:COI
635:JBW
607:can
526:KSI
520:.
442:. —
177:XfD
175:) (
82:or
22:Log
983:)
963:iz
945:)
937:.
925:,
916:)
891:)
869:)
854:)
834:)
819:)
790:)
753:)
641:)
620:,
587:)
566:)
512:,
508:,
504:,
500:,
479:,
467:)
420:)
401:)
378:)
356:)
233:)
214:)
74:–
42::
979:(
960:L
941:(
912:(
887:(
880::
876:@
865:(
850:(
830:(
815:(
786:(
749:(
637:(
583:(
562:(
555::
551:@
463:(
456::
452:@
434:(
416:(
397:(
391::
387:@
374:(
352:(
340::
336:@
305:—
229:(
210:(
189:)
181:|
168:|
162:|
154:|
146:|
138:|
133:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.