Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stonetoss (2nd nomination)

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stonetoss

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Duplicate of previously deleted article; fails WP:GNG and doesn't satisfy any listed item for WP:NARTIST. (For reference, here is the previous deletion dicussion[1]). The article subject is an anonymous twitter artist. As noted in the previous deletion discussion and in WP:BEFORE, the most substantive citations are the same articles from the The Daily Dot [2][3] referencing reddit and twitter posts. Per WP:RSP and previous deletion discussion, The Daily Dot is of dubious credibility. Of the other sources that might satisfy WP:SIGCOV, is a Bitcoin.com article[4] heavily referencing the subject's twitter account (and a similar article[5] seemingly written by a non-English speaker or A.I.). The remaining sources give passing mention to the subject and are also exclusively social media focused. GoggleGoose (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics and Internet. GoggleGoose (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more notable than last time; only sourcing that I find is is Know Your Meme. Delete for lack of sourcing, not at GNG. What's given in the article talks briefly about Mr or Mrs Stonetoss, nothing I'd call extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gizmodo is a slide show, so only briefly mentioning the individual. Rest are trivial coverage in non-RS regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sadly this nazi has a whole paragraph dedicated to them in this journal entry titled DIY Cruelty: The Global Political Micro-Practices of Hateful Memes

Wrythemann (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Observed that during WP:BEFORE, but didn't think a three sentence blurb satisfies for notability. GoggleGoose (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ah, just noticed this account is a couple days old, perhaps familiarizing with WP:SIGCOV would be helpful GoggleGoose (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Since the first time the article was deleted, the only update is the article subject had a cancelled NFT sale. Even per WP:BLP1E, a cancelled art sale itself isn't noteworthy. Fractured Logic (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. non-notable internet personality Antilock (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2023 (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.