Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StoneToss (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.49.72.125 (talk) at 22:45, 21 March 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

StoneToss

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

StoneToss (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)

This is the 3rd deletion nomination for this subject. (Previous discussions: [1], [2]) As observed in WP:BEFORE, the subject status has not changed since the previous 2 deletions - that of a controversial social media artist. As before, the article struggles with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Article is also WP:BLP and does not appear to contain any listed item to satisfy WP:ARTIST. All sourced material to the subject involve activity that occur exclusively on social media.

The article first sentence, short description, and page category refers to the subject as a "neo-nazi" cartoonist. This is despite the claim being disputed by the subject within the sourced materials itself. [3][4] WP:NPOV

Other material for the article include; sources from political outlets [5] [6] WP:RS, sources that include only short or single-sentence blurbs on the subject[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] WP:SIGCOV, and sources listed as dubious by wikipedia [13] [14] WP:RS. One notable source [15] claims that the subject is a neo-nazi, but itself references a single quote by a user banned on the X platform in relation to the subject. In every single case, the referenced material exclusively concerns interactions on social media. As one source [16] states, "this case is remarkable because no-one outside of extremely online spaces cares." Fails WP:ARTIST criterion. GoggleGoose (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete – While StoneToss has become somewhat more notable recently, it is going to be near impossible to keep within the guidelines of WP:NPOV for WP:BLP for this article given the number of detractors he has. GranCavallo (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Outside of the doxxing incident, he has received little significant coverage. Perhaps some of this content can be merged into Alt-right pipeline or a similar article? Estreyeria (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Concerns about adhering to WP:NPOV are not by themselves sufficient to justify deleting an article, since editors have navigated this on similar WP:BLP topics like the articles for Ben Shapiro and Thomas Robb. Stonetoss having many detractors is not a major issue since most of his detractors are not Wikipedia editors and some of his most vocal supporters are likely to be editors as well (generalizing based on the wider population). I would be willing to take on the task of rewriting this article in a neutral POV.
The claim that this article's existence hinges on social media interactions is inaccurate, since Stonetoss has a long history of publishing comics that espouse the author's views such as [this anti-Semitic one (Archive link [url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240117231253/https://stonetoss.com/comic/as-above-so-below/]). Publishing content on the internet that is subsequently reblogged on social media sites does not seem sufficient to describe someone as a "social media artist".
As far as notability is concerned, I might have been favour of moving the content to a "far right pipeline" or similar article, even after the doxxing incident, but X/Twitter removing mentions of Stonetoss' identity and suppressing journalist accounts elevates the notability of the original account and will result in increased searches for the author's online name. The figure is notable in far right circles, even though far right views are niche among the general population. TROPtastic (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The first four references (Wired, Boing Boing, Daily Dot, and Mashable) all seem to show significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:RSPS lists Wired as "generally reliable," Boing Boing as "no consensus on the reliability ... some of its articles are written by subject-matter experts ," Daily Dot as "no consensus regarding the general reliability," and Mashable as "non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine." Elspea756 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 2024 StoneToss controversy or something like that. I don't know whether he can be argued to be notable as a cartoonist, but X's response of aggressively clamping down on efforts to spread the article or even post the subject's name despite it not being per se a TOS violation after StoneToss personally appealed to Musk to do so is definitely getting the kind of coverage to make notability beyond question, especially in light of the apparent double standard regarding deadnaming of trans figures on the platform and Musk's relative inaction in that area. (And if we do do this, we should not publish the subject's name and at least RevDel any previous appearances. I don't care what an execrable human being he probably is, his identity was disclosed without his consent despite his efforts (documented by ACC, no less) to keep it a secret. ACC and all the others spreading it around may have their reasons, and I may agree with them, but Wikipedia does not have to, and should not be, part of this). We can only if he decides to confirm all this and discuss it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose split the article into two. The 'incident' and the 'webcomic' trainrobber >be me 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The “incident” would not pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Elspea, coverage by RSes has changed since the last nom. 3df (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of these sources show any more notability than the past discussion. They’re all in the context of one event (WP:BLP1E), him getting doxed, and none of the reliable sources analyze his works. The new sources in existence do not actually discuss what would, hypothetically, be notable about him - the content of his comics. He got doxed, and then people got banned for reporting on it. Add that to the article about controversies relating to Twitter that I’m sure we have. Why would we have an article on an artist, especially a political one, when their works are barely discussed in the sources we have on them? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If their works are barely discussed in the sources we have on them, how are we able to have the content found in Special:Permalink/1214892159#Content and reception? —Alalch E. 22:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/StoneToss_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1214903422"