Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeepFuckingValue

DeepFuckingValue

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

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

The subject is a living person known primarily for a single event, the GameStop short squeeze. WP:BLP1E applies. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, 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}}.

This discussion concerns the proposed deletion of the article DeepFuckingValue. For the concurrent discussion about moving the article to another title, please see Talk:DeepFuckingValue § Requested move 2 February 2021.

Keep - WP:BLP1E does not apply since points 2 and 3 are not met. Their role in the event is very well-documented, and they are not likely to remain low-profile otherwise. Per WP:LOWPROFILE, "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." DeepFuckingValue sought out interviews with media, making them fail this criteria and BLP1E. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough info here that it makes sense to split it off from the main article. It could be merged, but that wouldn't be ideal. It's more than just a passing mention. Benjamin (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - #3 "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Event is significant and the individual's role is substantial and well-documented. UserTwoSix (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Elliot, seems to satisfy WP:BLP and WP:GNG as this person has seen much media coverage. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GameStop short squeeze per WP:CRYSTALBALL. We can't know right now whether or not Gill will have sustained coverage in the press (WP:1E) or whether or not he will remain low-profile (WP:BLP1E). I also disagree with the idea that he sought out media; from every indication, it seems to have happened the other way around. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Reuters doxxed someone, and then everyone else wrote about the doxxing. 64.246.153.97 (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters did not dox anyone. He gave an interview. He runs a YouTube channel that makes his personality, his likeness, and his portfolio known. He has made no attempts to stay low-profile. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elliot321. This is WP:NOTBLP1E. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per other comments, not all requirements are met for 1 event, nor is the event insignificant. However I would suggest renaming, as his coverage uses often uses his real name, not just his reddit or other social (YouTube etc) usernames. This article is named after the reddit user, but his notability is not specific only to that. DrGvago (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GameStop short squeeze per our general guidelines on one event notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You have !voted in four AfDs in less than two minutes. I find it extremely unlikely that you have even bothered to read the article, let alone check its sources. jp×g 17:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they just clicked publish in less that two minutes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Johnpacklambert could clarify for us. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should not throw personal attacks at people who !vote against an article you created on an AfD discussion.--JBchrch (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if this scans as a negative implication about Johnpacklambert's character; I did not intend this when I wrote the comment. jp×g 01:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from casting aspersions. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, considering the subject has been the subject of several profiles from RSes like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numerous media stories. Integral figure for understanding the GameStop story, and why WallStreetBets has attracted millions of new members in such a short time. This feels like deletionism for the sake of deletionism. Edited to add: Once kept, I'd vote to change the article title to Keith Gill, as the story has legs, and he is becoming (or already is) widely known by his real name, as in [1]. Also, technically, this article, if DFV were kept as the title, should be "u/DeepFuckingValue" due to Reddit quirks, but then it starts to get ridiculous. Moncrief (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Come on, he’s already being asked to the house financial services committee. 2603:8000:D900:87C7:25B6:E36B:7F9:8A88 (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
so that's ppl trying to hiding something to history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.187.98.147 (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Notable enough to redirect to GameStop short squeeze Quiddy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keith Gill, his legal name. EdJF (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Gill is significant enough to warrant an article but shouldn't be known primarily by an online moniker. bachwiz18 (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bachwiz18: This discussion is about whether to delete the article, not what its title should be. I would encourage you to give your thoughts about moving the article to another title at the ongoing discussion at Talk:DeepFuckingValue § Requested move 2 February 2021. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or Redirect to his real name~~. Cited in many news articles. More articles on him than many other wiki articles on a person. Got a bit politically significance since he is asked to testify at congress.Newslack (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslack: This discussion is about whether to delete the article, not what its title should be. I would encourage you to give your thoughts about moving the article to another title at the ongoing discussion at Talk:DeepFuckingValue § Requested move 2 February 2021. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said keep OR redirect as per the people who suggested it above. So definitely not a delete.Newslack (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslack: If we were to redirect it, would you be suggesting that we redirect it to the disambiguation page that currently exists at Keith Gill? Or would the article continue to exist as-is, just at a different title? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article as is, just at a different title. This is what I mean. Sorry for the confusion.Newslack (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslack: No worries! I just wanted to clarify as, typically, when "redirect" is suggested in an AfD discussion, it is intended that the content of the article be replaced with a redirect without being moved elsewhere. Provided it's okay with you, I'll strike out the bolded part of your original comment to make your intent clear to the person closing this discussion. If you want your voice heard on the issue of changing the article title, though, I would strongly recommend you leave a note at Talk:DeepFuckingValue § Requested move 2 February 2021. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. History is in the making, this individual is about to testify in congress as he is a significant person of interest, that alone is good reason to keep this as a separate article.N7ee (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is one simple question we must ask. Is DeepFuckingValue a noteworthy individual, or is he not? I would say by the fact that the news is reporting on him this very day in the very serious chance hes interviewed by a congressional committee, that the answer is evidently yes. In addition, the argument being made claims that hes primarily known for one event and therefore not noteworthy. By this logic, the article for Sirhan Sirhan should be folded into the article on Robert F Kennedy's assassination, as he is an individual whose sole noteworthy act was involved in a single, larger incident. (Note: This was the first comparison I could think of, this is in no way intended to imply a personal opinion on this individual equating him to an assassin.) Jyggalypuff (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' or 'Merge with one of the other articles on the GME squeeze. Wikipedia is not the news. This is a clear example of recentism. Having said that, I suggest it be held off for a month or so. Otherwise a new one will be created. Hollth (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]