Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dice (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 speedy keep. Invalid nomination; notability ain't temporary and disruption by the subject (and his followers) do not affect it either. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 06:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Mark Dice

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Mark Dice
• Articles for deletion/Mark Dice (2nd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Mark Dice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In the last AfD I voted to keep the article as I felt that the article could be improved if RS could be found to update the article. However, the events that have occurred over the past few days with Dice desperately attempting to "fix" this page has made me change my mind. Most RS cover the conspiracy theories he used to promote years ago, and there is little coverage of his YouTube channel today (even though it has 1.4 million subs). If no RS exists for his career today, he simply can't be notable. I think deleting this article would be best for everyone, as Dice would not have a biography to complain about, and there is no indication that he will become notable anytime soon (even with this controversy) funplussmart (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep There is evidence already in the article of reliable sources discussing him in detail. Clearly passes GNG. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Easily meets GNG, and deletion is not cleanup. Vermont (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep under WP:SKCRIT#2d as nomination is "clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion". Bakazaka (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The only "dispute" is Dice and his followers trying to violate basic policies and push his agenda into this article. I was thinking on and off about re-nominating this page for a while, it was only this incident that made me actually want to do it. funplussmart (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep subject has accrued significant coverage in WP:RS, including in print sources like [1]. Notability is also not relative to date, and the AFD process should not be used as a means to remove a possibly-disruptive individual's article from the project, as is implied by the nominator's comments. I would support a speedy keep in this instance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and Bakazaka. Nihlus 02:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Maintenance_of_BLPs for what I'm talking about. funplussmart (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete # of users is not an accurate measure of notability, but # of impartial references to is. DO not see this person used as expert in this field, just someone who has a big megephone on YouTube. AmorinoLA (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete because of lack of credibility of well known and hugely read sources that mention him but which are banned on wiki. So there can’t be a real article! Qwerty786 (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Check these dozens if not hundreds of sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia, that mention him: [2], [3]. Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per my comment in the previous AfD. Despite Dice's pitches on YouTube about his article, reliable sources make clear he hasn't really done anything of significance since 2015. They basically use him as a go-to guy when they need an alt-right person who will actually talk to them. That doesn't mean his previous work as a conspiracy theorist isn't notable (views he has never renounced, btw, and books he still sells through his own publishing house...) In fact, because he's trying to rebrand himself as some media commentator rather than as a conspiracy theorist who believes that Katy Perry is a Satanic Witch dancing in the Iluminati rituals at the Super Bowl Halftime show is even more of a reason for us to keep this article: his actual views and published opinions, as noted in reliable sources, are important for the public to know. Deleting this would be giving Dice what he wants: a whitewashed page, and preventing the reader from getting a fair, accurate, and up-to-date article on him, independent of his control. We are currently the only place that does that, and it is a positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily passes GNG and ANYBIO, as the simplest click of a link in the Find Sources section at the top reveals. Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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.