Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Anakin (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 keep. ✗plicit 00:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Anakin

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)

A random hacker with one breach, a Twitter "prank" and a couple defacements fails WP:RECENTISM and probably doesnt meet WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Last AfD decision was speedy delete Softlemonades (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2022 (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}}.

Keep It appears they have at least 4 events described, that appears to meet GNG with the sources provided. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage isn't significant. Non-notable. Delete. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been trimmed down; and has the support of quality references Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles cites publications such as Motherboard and ZDNet, which are considered reliable with regard to technology. The nomination rationale seems to just be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT-type argument. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about liking it or reliability, its notability. ZDNet talks about a "few" defacements which just isnt notable and what you said about Motherboard is just false, theres no consensus about it being reliable.

Please remember to assume good faith and not accuse other editors of secret motives Softlemonades (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My internal perceptions (how I am thinking internally, my thought process) regarding this AFD were initially formed by a monolithic or preferred focus on a single topic. Wikipedia documentation mentions the possibility that narrow focus sometimes speaks against consensus building; more so the documentation suggests that single focus can damage how you might be perceived by other editors.

(This is not something I was going to mention, by mentioning "motives" the door to asking "why" was opened) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BBC and ZDNet are both unarguably good enough for GNG. Motherboard is less clear on reliability (I personally have no strong opinion on it; I'm not familiar with the source) but certainly significant coverage. The coverage is also spaced out across multiple years, so arguments involving WP:SUSTAINED and WP:RECENTISM don't seem to hold water. casualdejekyll 00:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning for recentism was the WP:10YEARTEST. I dont think anyone will care about a Twitter prank ten years later. Its also not the main BBC news section, its BBCs blog. Theres a difference Softlemonades (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are enough reliable sources to satisfy the GNG. Other issues can be resolved with (lots of) editing. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2022 (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.