Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTTP

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. ✗plicit 14:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UTTP

[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)

Notorious online troll group known for doing a lot of bad stuff that I will not explain here. Still, I don't think it's notable enough for it's own WP page. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage by any reliable sources. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I did add References so why is it not notable AyaanJaved (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those references are reliable sources. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any sigcov at all and existing references are all entirely user-generated without defining notability. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete and salt (in article and draft space)~~ This is a literal copy-and-paste from Google AI mode, and the only 'notorious' thing this group has done is spam comment sections and wikis (Fandom and here) with pointless fighting over kid things. Also assuming this was forced through since we've probably locked the full title and variations several times over, so this needs salting. Nathannah • 📮 12:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I heard the group spammed dead animals and children on Discord. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody can name themselves anything they want on Discord and that is definitely not notable or sourcable in the least. We only consider reliable sources, with veracity on the open web. Nathannah • 📮 21:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about this group have been created at UTTP, UTUBETROLLPOLICE, and UTubeTrollPolice. That's 4 times since the UTTP article was previously deleted in 2016 TheGoofWasHere (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's some sort of political/group/organization in Indonesia that shares this abbreviation, but it's not related to this. I don't see any sourcing about an online group with this name. Sourcing now in the article is... just sad. Reddit, Wiktionary and Urban Dictionary? These are not RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that @Oaktree b:; I would support a delete/locked redirect to Ministry of Trade (Indonesia), which contains that political department (UTTP is a department there that supports metrology). Nathannah • 📮 22:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the subject lacks coverage by WP:RS.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i will try and find WP:RS. Jdn2004 (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, lacks any reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.: this is a small group of individuals trolling on Youtube, which really doesn't necessitate its own page. In addition, this page was written by AI as proven by other voters. Wickedfandude (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable per WP:GNG — tony 14:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At its current stage as a stub I see your point but if we manage to add more information about them into the page I think it could stay. Benukasr (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article lacks coverage by reliable sources and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Furthermore, it appears to be fully AI-generated. 193.5.232.61 (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can you proje its AI generated?

Simple - You cant. Jdn2004 (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to ZeroGPT, 87% of the article is generated by AI, while Scribblr, GPTZero, and QuillBot score it at 100%. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I literally said above that it's word-for-word a copy of what Google's AI mode generates. It is a full-on copyright violation endorsed by an LLM. 13:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC) Nathannah • 📮 13:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Completely fails GNG, no verifiable evidence of notability, should have never been moved out of draftspace — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 23:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a small, relatively obscure group of trolls, and spam bots. Other than posting spam comments on certain videos, there's nothing noteworthy. Rickraptor707 (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree. Barely any reliable sources in the article. This isn't notable enough in an outside web search. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 05:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: I would generally suggest to not delete the article just yet. It is possible to rewrite it without AI, and if we do not find any credible sources to mention (even if we write this without AI), then it could be deleted. Although I believe that no major sources would actually cover some trolling shenanigans. So relying solely over sources might not so be good. (It's like saying water is wet, but looking for sources to prove it. And if no sources were hypothetically found, then saying the above statement is false.)

Some other internet troll documentation also exists in Wikipedia, so why not this? Only thing is, just rewrite it without AI. L. M. Mahin (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So relying solely over sources might not so be good L. M. Mahin that would go against Wikipedia's policy of WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. Sure, obvious facts don't need sources, but without reliable sources what "obvious facts" can we say about UTTP? They exist and are a trolling organization, perhaps. Anything related to history, legacy, or targets will need to be sourced, or else how will we know the facts are accurate?

Some other internet troll documentation also exists in Wikipedia please have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This article needs to stand on its own, regardless of what other articles may or may not be out there. Do agree the AI issue is fixable, but if no WP:Reliable sources are found there's not much that can be done. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 19:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. While I do have personal knowledge of the UTTP, there are barely any reliable sources that talk about the group. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 23:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess soft redirect to this Wiktionary entry unless that entry has no merit in being on Wiktionary. AlphaBeta135 talk 01:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should UTTP be soft-redirected to Wiktionary or no? AlphaBeta135 talk 02:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need really TheGoofWasHere (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: This group has zero reliable sources. The only sources cited here are user generated (like Fandom or YouTube). These guys stopped being relevant in 2024, quit dragging them into the big 25 ( ͡| O ͡|)/\. --TheGoofWasHere (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest salting this as UTTP and UTUBETROLLPOLICE were deleted two times already. TheGoofWasHere (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But UTTP came back and they uploaded their video only 3 weeks ago AyaanJaved (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're still irrelevant now TheGoofWasHere (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How are the irrelevant when their latest video got 273,974 views, 1,260 likes, anc 15,570 comments AyaanJaved (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a huge WP:BLP violation, given the things the group are accused of, with no verifiable sources at all. At least one member of the group is supposedly named. Additionally, the "YFGA" section seems totally irrelevant. Removing these sections is tantamount to deleting the article outright. InklingF (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2025 (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.