Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sounds Fake But Okay

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 keep. Sandstein 20:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Fake But Okay

[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)

Article fails WP:Notability due to lack of reliable secondary sources. The subject of the article recruited agents on Twitter to manipulate this article, violating WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:MEAT.Waqob (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: We've been here before. There are no "recruited agents" on Twitter "manipulat[ing]" the article (wow, that sounds like a Trump conspiracy theory...yes, I went there!) 20 references, I think that's notable enough. One of those was for "Best LGBTQ+ Culture Podcast" for 2020. Highly notable. Absolutely zero COI and NPOV. I do believe we already established the "meatpuppet" issue...unless we are talking about a new Lady Gaga meat dress.

In case you are wondering, no, I am not taking this AfD seriously because this is stupid. As are a number of Waqob's edits like this and this and this and this and this, not to mention the unilateral move of this page without discussion. Not to mention the user's all-of-a-sudden appearance and editing spree after a very gnome-ish year-to-year pattern of editing.

My point is, this entire AfD is to make a POINT (the user's current style of editing is as well, to be quite honest). It's against the rules and there is no POINT to it. The user is clearly editing in a unconstructive manner and is not here to edit constructively within the rules of the community. I move that this AfD be Speedy Kept and Closed immediately, with disciplinary action at least considered forthwith. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:23 on January 4, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

What point could I possibly be trying to make? You seem unusually defensive of both this article and the creator Beepbopwhy. Other editors found evidence of Beepbopwhy of being a paid actor with a conflict of interest and you seem unusually quick to jump to the passionate defense of Beepbopwhy, and you also seem to know personal details about the editor, which is suspicious. The quantity of the sources is irrelevant, what matters is the quality. All of this article's sources are either directly affiliated with the podcast or they are unverified human-interest stories intended to embellish the podcast. The Best LGBTQ+ Culture Podcast award is presented by a website called Discover Pods which doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article, and most of the other podcasts awarded by the website don't have Wikipedia articles either - so it is unknown what makes this podcast notable enough for a Wikipedia article. When editors include tags in this article that point out this problem, you remove them. This is suspicious behavior that reveals a potential conflict of interest, especially since the podcast is known to publicly call for an army to engage in editing manipulation on its behalf. Waqob (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, what is "suspicious" is you ask for improvement and then immediately nom it for deletion. So, do you want improvement or deletion? Which is it? Also, just because something else doesn't have a Wikipedia article doesn't make this non-notable. Be BOLD, create it! I believe you need to explore the rules of Wikipedia before you start nominating things for deletion.

Also, there is a community online the Asexuality Community, which is part of the much larger LGBTQIA+ community. It's not an "army" that one can "publically call" to "engage in editing manipulation" on anyone's "behalf" and no one has. You are misleading everyone, including yourself, if you believe that's what is taking place.

Since you are clearly unaware of the chain of events and how things transpired, let me bring you up to speed.

Several months back, Actress Pauley Perrette (best known for her role on NCIS) apparently came out as asexual via her Twitter account. Now, whether that is true or not, we will never know. Why? Because people began messaging her en masse and basically within hours, she removed any mention of it from her Twitter account. There was a MAJOR and VERY heated edit war on her Wikipedia page and across other Wikipedia pages. I followed her Wikipedia page, so I naturally got involved. While trying to find any kind of reference (ie: via Google searches), I realized that a community was very much up in arms on Twitter about the page. They didn't understand why what was going on, why things were being erased from Wikipedia.

Knowing I could help, even if that meant I had to out myself publicly, I was OK with it. So I did. Connecting my real world name with my Wikipedia account. I began communicating with the Asexual Visibility and Education Network via their Twitter account. Explaining the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia and what everything meant as it was happening in real time. Yes, the proverbial shit did hit the fan. But not because I was communicating to the Asexuality Community via Twitter. Because they, themselves got involved and advocated for themselves and basically shut down the hate that was going around. Things, though, did work out and conversations were had.

The young woman who originally created the Sounds Fake But Okay article (ie: Beepbopwhy, formerly Kayla kas) disconnected herself from the article and I took it over. I asked it be deleted and I recreated it (with admin approval) as it was with some major revisions and then, added a ton of references. Now 20 of them reside on the page, soon 21.

My point TL;DR point is you didn't have the entire story and you made a mountain out of a molehill.

There is no conspiracy, there is no "army", there is no "editing manipulation", and yes, I vehemently defend those who can't defend themselves....with. a. passion. Oh and the "editors [who] include tags in this article that point out [a] problem"...there were two! One had a long history of not being agreeable, so it was pointless to try. The other, we discussed it and moved on. Your points are without merit. A community discussion with the Asexuality community included has already taken place, a conversation was had, nerves were soothed, people have moved on. YOU are late to the party, dude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:27 on January 5, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

My concern isn't with Pauley Perrette, it's with Sounds Fake But Okay. In ordinary circumstances, Sounds Fake But Okay would have been deleted due to spam and a lack of reliable secondary sources. The podcast posted this tweet on May 19th 2020, the day the article was approved. And someone posted this response a day later, claiming to have approved the article. Editors noticed various problems with both the new article and its creator, who were subsequently silenced by you. This indicates that this article was approved in a biased non-neutral manner and the creator of the podcast hired people to prevent it from being deleted. Waqob (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Waqob: Apparently you are having a hard time reading. The Pauley Perrette article and the hooplah is tied to this one. Just with about 5 months between them. Now, the user you keep quoting....is me] for the 4th time! It isn't "someone", it isn't "biased", and it isn't "non-neutral" and I wasn't "hired". Would I like to get paid after nearly 15 years. You bet your ass I would. Having to deal with this shit all day. Hell yeah, gimme a pile of dough!

But no, as I said above, I took it upon myself to after Kayla (aka: Beepbopwhy)) disconnected herself from this article, and I brought it back to a revised standard. Yeah, it was as she wrote it, but I added improvements. But, credit was give were credit was due. She created this originally, not I. All I did was add sources, categories, and now I watch over the page. That's all I do. I don't get paid a cent and I was never asked. It is YOUR burden to prove that I am being paid (ie: hired) to make the edits I have made, just like you have to prove the conflict of interest. So far, you have done none of that. It's more of a flailing-at-the-wind-kinda-interpretative-dance-and-yelling-really-loud-at-anyone-talking thing. It ain't workin'.

So, TL;DR: Once again, this Twitter account is mine. I am not being paid. Read the chain of events, stop grasping as straws...and maybe turn off OAN or Fox News. Yeah, I went there...again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:29 on January 5, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

Keep. I have never heard of this podcast before I ran across this nomination. I agree that the article has a notability issue. What's ridiculous is that the editor seems to have nominated it for deletion solely because the podcast mentioned on Twitter that a notability tag had been placed on the article. The nomination went up right after the notability tag was added. Asking people to help improve the article doesn't violate WP:COI, WP:NPOV, or WP:MEAT. Lagringa (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability tag was added previous times in the past and the tweet was a reference to the one that was added on June 19th (and the tag was removed a moments after the tweet)Waqob (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was actually incorrect earlier when I said Justnumbersandletters was "One had a long history of not being agreeable, so it was pointless to try", that was a goof on my part. That was in June and it's been a VERY tough year, plus I was just getting over COVID (so you'll have to forgive me, memory is a little foggy there). He actually had just declined Beepbopwhy's article for creation and in his very next edit, put those templates up. I thought it was a little vindictive, but that's why I did respond the way I did. I did work with the other editor though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:44 on January 5, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
Keep: Article needs a little clean-up. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG with the sources indicated by Neutralhomer. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:00, 7 January 2021 (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.