Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination)

I haven't read the GNG or NPOL thingies, so I don't know what they exactly say. I may be wrong with the things that I say here, I may not even be posting/writing in the correct section for this. But here's it:

I am a guy from Germany, living in the Netherlands, and enjoy the content that creators on YouTube produce. I've been following Kevin Paffrath for quite some time now and am amazed by his work ethic. When he announced he was running for governor of California, I first thought it was a joke. Turns out it wasn't. I'm thrilled. I belong to about the same demographic as Kevin himself and am so incredibly sick and tired of the establishment burning away tax payers money, changing nothing for the better for the common people. It could be so easy, but everybody has their heads so far up the big wig's butts, that they just can't see de way anymore. A friend of mine over here is part of a pan-European movement called Volt. It mainly consists of young people who want to change the status quo by bringing actual common sense and decency into politics. If I'm not mistaken, Kevin aims just to do that in California as well. Given the Dutch branch of Volt's recent succes in Dutch parliament elections, the concept is taking hold. Volt, not even having been included in polls until just six weeks before the Dutch 2021 general election, managed to score 2.4%, or 3 seats on the parliament. Which is insane. My point here being: Their Wikipedia page didn't get deleted, now, did it?? How come? Why has this tiny splinter of a fractured parliament somewhere in good ol' Europe more right to exist on YouTube than an official Democrat candidate for governorship in California? I smell BS. Also, why does this teeny, tiny village that probably about 5 people outside of the village even know about, have the right to exist on Wikipedia? RIGHT! Because it's the free encyclopedia, a community driven and curated page that wants to make information accessible to all! Holy canneloni, I mean come on! You are the advocates of free information for everybody and now you try to delete a legitimate entry that shares exactly that - information on a critical public matter?! WHY?

I am losing faith in humanity more and more. ThomasMoll (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You have identified your problem in your first sentence. If you would read the WP:GNG and WP:NPOL then you would find the answers to your questions about why there are articles on a tiny village (WP:GEOLAND) and new political parties, and why Paffrath's article may not qualify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Your loss of faith is very reasonable. Unfortunately, while most Wikipedia editors are well meaning, a tiny percentage are full-time political actors who selectively swarm any establishment-unfriendly and potentially subversive personalities and topics, manufacture a false consensus, and in a flurry of acronyms and jargon, bury them on extremely spurious notability or reliability grounds. At least two of these people are currently active in the deletion debate. It's really a crisis in information and a disgrace to Wikipedia's ostensible mission.Pc031985 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing tags

The question, Gorilla, is why are you tagging each and every 'keep' vote as canvassed? There are 3-4 that have long editing histories on a variety of topics. Try having some evidence before you go smearing other editors.Pc031985 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pc031985: I accidentally deleted this while undoing yet another of your tag removals, but it's more appropriate here anyway. There is evidence that people were solicited outside of Wikipedia to involve themselves in this discussion (https://twitter.com/realMeetKevin/status/1395427515179487232) and so I have tagged new accounts who have not contributed elsewhere, and accounts which have returned from a long period of inactivity only to contribute in this discussion, as is standard practice. You, as someone who has voted in this discussion, need to stop removing these tags, which is disruptive and hinders the eventual closure of this discussion.

I'm not sure which 3–4 you are referring to; if you are still unclear on why I have tagged someone given my explanation above, or think I have made an error, please specify the user and I will happily double check or explain.

Might I ask how you came to be aware of this discussion? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I saw that Paffrath (who I was already well aware of, since he is a major figure in the real estate/finance podcast / online-news world, which is an interest of mine, and where virtually all of his comparably notable podcaster peers have articles) was running for governor. Then I searched to see if he had a Wikipedia article/what it said (since major candidates generally have articles), and saw the (very predictable) deletion discussion.Pc031985 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no indication at all that Kylekieran, Jimwilliams975, and GalakStarscraper were canvassed. Each has an extensive editing history on a variety of unrelated topics. Have you considered that since Paffrath is in fact very famous, people who are aware of him may also be editors, who like me decided to check his article when it was announced he was running, or for some other reason, and were then struck by the bizarre nomination to take down the article? The numbers of WP editors and people aware of Paffrath aren't at all against that possibility. It's blatantly obvious that you have an agenda to discredit any compelling arguments for keeping the article. It's also blatantly obvious that El Cid, the initial nominator, who was absurdly 'only able to find one article' when there are 37 already sourced, has an agenda to remove Paffrath from public view, probably for political reasons. As stated, I don't even support Paffrath's politics, but he is notable and should have an article.Pc031985 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Pc031985, why would it not be possible for canvassed editors to have edited in unrelated topic areas before? Kylekieran had not edited for 10 months before coming here, Jimwilliams975 not for 7 months and GalakStarscraper for over two years. GorillaWarfare has clearly stated that she is tagging everyone who has not edited in 2021, so I don't really know where "without even checking their histories" comes from, particularly given that not everyone !voting keep has been tagged by her. I understand that this might feel to you like an attempt to discredit those voting to keep the article, but canvassing is an issue and you should trust the closing editor/administrator to weigh arguments appropriately instead of being overly concerned about tags. 15 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Get real; people including the first poster here are very tired of the politicization of this website and social media/the internet in general. They may not edit that frequently, but saw an injustice and chose to take action. They didn't have to be 'canvassed' by anyone; I certainly wasn't (I've edited on WP for 10+ years hundreds or thousands of times but forgot my previous username after a long period of inactivity).Pc031985 (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Pc031985: As I have already mentioned to another editor, I have a Tweetdeck column for tweets mentioning Wikipedia. Seeing his tweet was the first I'd ever heard of Paffrath; finance and real estate are possibly the two topics I am least interested in, and as a Massachusetts resident who has never lived outside of New England I have no real interest in California gubernatorial politics either. All this to say, I assure you I have no ulterior motives for or against Paffrath.

Regarding the users you mention: Kylekieran's most recent edit prior to this discussion and related pages was July 2020 (contribs). Jimwilliams975's was October 2020 (contribs). GalakStarscraper's was September 2017 (contribs). It is hardly unreasonable to suspect that editors who haven't edited for between eight months and 3½ years may have become aware of the discussion through outside notifications, though there are of course other explanations. I have mentioned in at least one edit summary that I have applied the tag to any editors who have not edited in 2021 aside from in this discussion, which seems to me a reasonable metric.

I think part of the issue here is that you are ascribing some sort of accusatory tone to these tags, or believe that they will cause the closing administrator to completely disregard any comments that have been tagged. These are informational only, and administrators do not discount arguments just because a person may have been canvassed (indeed, see the {{notaballot}} template at the top of the page, which explicitly states you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome, and advises people how to comment in a way that is more likely to be effective). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking over your last month of activity, it's clear that you are here for deeply ideological reasons, to inject your worldview and politics into articles at any opportunity, not to create an encyclopedia. The overwhelming majority of your edits lie in a narrow field. Perhaps Gavin Newsom somehow represents the furtherance or protection of your values, and this drives you to spend your time discrediting Paffrath.Pc031985 (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)