Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Cernovich

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cernovich

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

Subject matter isn't notable for anything other than their involvement in the Gamergate controversy. This pretty much puts them into the "single event" category; anything of value here can be pushed into the actual Gamergate controversy article. Jorm (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because of Reddit, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete Per Jorm, and the fact that being cited for something does not make you inherently notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Known for one event, and even then barely. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 04:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, known for just one event. He can be mentioned at Gamergate controversy if relevant. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomination. There are precedents for keeping, but each of these has existed in circumstances where there has been a preponderance anticipating "eventual" relevance/notability. It's unlikely based on events thus far that Cernovich will ever be notable for any other efforts. --rm 'w a vu 04:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anything relevant can be copied to the main article. Artw (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, but not opposed to moving anything notable to GGC if it isn't already contained there. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 08:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Revert and Request Consensus Edit Today the page was the target of off-site canvassing immediately after petitioner Jorm edited the page - https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/3c95hu/mike_cernovich_had_a_wikipedia_page/ - https://archive.is/NSdOW - As seen directed from the 'GamerGhazi' subreddit. Instead rebuild page and then reconsider request. Its clear the request is inappropriate at this time after it has experienced vandalism. This is edit warring, not a good faith request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.24.152 (talk • contribs)

So, 77.97.24.152, you seem to have a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings. What was the name of your registered account? Why are you not using it here? Binksternet (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the IP is User:J0eg0d evading his block. J0eg0d had it out for Jorm, and both J0eg0d and the IP participated in the same discussions, for instance User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_189#.27Sinister.27_-_Harassment_on_Wikipedia_News_Piece and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_190#UPDATE:_Breitbart_Global_News_Syndicate_-_Reliability_Dispute. Both the IP and J0eg0d had it out for MarkBernstein, the IP on Mark's talk page, and Gamaliel's talk page, and J0eg0d by way of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive175#MarkBernstein. I think we can ignore this IP's contributions per WP:DENY. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from one IP account whose edit was reverted and Thorrand, a fairly new account that reverted the IP's edit, the only other recent editors are Salvidrim! and Jorm, neither one of whom was sent from GamerGhazi to edit this article. The article might have been discussed in that forum on reddit but there is no evidence of an influx of new editors vandalizing this biography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got here from WP:AE, actually. I saw Thorrand's posting there and examined their contributions, which brought me to the article.--Jorm (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)While I definitely wouldn't say I "came from GamerGhazi to edit the article", the Reddit thread is indeed what prompted the article's SPP, as I've made clear in my edit summary -- without it being mentioned on Reddit and pointed out to me, I would've probably never stumbled upon this article. I protected it less than an hour after the thread first started and before it started to pick up any traction, so the protection is probably a big part of the reason there weren't more IP/SPA edits to the article after the first one reverted by Thorrand. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the pre-edits version is hilariously awful, and I'd probably think it a deliberate parody if I'd not encountered GamerGate SPAs before. Chainsawing that mess down to size was entirely appropriate. Artw (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a gram of notability outside of Gamergate. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW delete Not only is this your typical case of BLP1E pretty much all reliable sources written about him are extremely negative. Absolutely no good can come from keeping this as an article. Bosstopher (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see BLP1E here, I see a no strong argument for notability at all. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Cernovich's major accomplishment is claims to own several websites and has a podcast available on iTunes, I don't believe this satisfies basic notability requirements. According to WP:BLP1E, this article should not be kept as Cernovich is likely to remain, a low-profile individual and the individual's role [in the event] was either not substantial or not well documented. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per BLP1E and the lack of any evidence of notability apart from Gamergate commentary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly falls under WP:BLP1E. --Aquillion (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of notability beyond Gamergate controversy. Charlie GALVIN (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even I have to agree that this doesn't meet notability and shouldn't exist at this point in time. Weedwacker (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails to meet WP:GNG. PigArcher (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2015 (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.