Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WifiSkeleton

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. The objections from some (mostly newer) editors are not well-grounded in our notability guidelines. RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WifiSkeleton

edit

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

WifiSkeleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic seemingly fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Currently, the independent coverage consists of: 1. a tabloid article, 2. an article that relies on the previous article, and 3. an article that cites the subject's fandom page as its source. I did my own search and was unable to find any significant coverage outside of tabloid articles concerning the subject's death. – AllCatsAreGrey (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're only here because you want the article kept (solely bc you like skel) then plz be open minded before you start spewing bs. User:Cyb3rstarz


Comment This AfD is rampant with single-purpose accounts that all want the article kept just because they're supporters of the artist (and all of their posts are equally horribly written). One even runs a fansite devoted to him. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 03:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His death is linked up to his discord server, including a stage talk in discord, unfortunately no one has a recording or a youtube video of this stage announcement , i could add images of his closest friends saying stuff, and due to lack of proof, the only things i have/we got is that he overdosed on drugs. MasonCityIowaUser (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC) — MasonCityIowaUser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Miami-Dade County Medical Examiners Case Number 2025-01306 is the examiner report for skel, users were told by gothangelz staff not to post it as it provided his full name, any image of the report posted gets deleted which suggests that it is actually him. 2skate (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC) — 2skate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This doesn’t matter anyway as it doesn’t establish subject notability. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 23:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Images of his closest friends saying stuff” are not viable sources. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 23:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he said he was going to kill himelf and hasnt been heard from since with people close to him saying hes dead seems pretty viable 185.111.172.171 (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Without legitimate sources it's hearsay. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 03:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
irrelevant ahh Aarnavdave (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC) — Aarnavdave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If you wanna keep the article solely because you like skel then you have no say 🥀, I like skel too but unfortunately I don't think he's notable enough for an article. Cyb3rstarz (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His music is good but he's definitely not notable enough. Cyb3rstarz (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely notable enough now, more monthly listeners than jaydes yet jaydes has his own article. He has a song with over 40 million plays that is currently trending on social media and is number 32 on the charts of most popular songs in the US. 2skate (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100% notable enough, i do agree the sources in the article could be better but i do not think it should be deleted personally BigChungusOnVinyl (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@2skate Popularity ≠ notability. Notability is coverage in reliable secondary sources, not how many “plays” something has.
Also, by “charts of most popular songs in the U.S.”, do you mean the most popular songs on Spotify in the U.S.? Wikipedia uses stuff like Billboard charts as sources, not single-platform charts. ApexParagon (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hes notable for killing himself boom done 2skate (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, there’d be millions of articles on Wikipedia which simply state “Bob was a plumber. He later killed himself”.
Dying does not make someone notable, alas. Especially if there are no reliable secondary sources reporting the death. ApexParagon (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he had millions of subscribers on yt when he was cyrus and has like 2 million mponthly listners definitley notable enough 185.111.172.171 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, popularity does not equal notability. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 05:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
man i think the page just needs to stay up lmao it's not that deep BigChungusOnVinyl (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so why does ricegum have a wikipedia page??? 176.248.180.68 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Other things exist. If you don't think that article should stay then you can nominate it for deletion. I would suggest reading the relevant policies about deletion and deletion rational first. Knitsey (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because RiceGum is covered in reliable secondary sources? This ain’t complicated lol ApexParagon (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"popularity does not equal notability." 176.248.180.68 (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant? Cyb3rstarz (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
are you blind or just purposefully ignorant X7771 (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged the article for notability as there is no viable coverage of his music and only tabloid/news farming sites were reporting his death. Sourcing in the article is trash and he has no notable discography, chart activity nor label work. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 20:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. To be frank, he is only currently popular due to having a viral song and because of his death. This doesn't really constitute for a Wikipedia article. Sosumiw (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this course of action given the lack of legitimate sources regarding his death and his barely notable fame. However, one could also easily argue that discarding the page entirely could turn out to be a temporary outcome, he could very well "chart" or garner a rather significant and notable cult following post-mortem in the near future, post-deletion. What then? Deleting may be the most rational decision for now, but you never really know what may happen, so I encourage someone to at the very least archive the page. 2600:4041:DB:8E00:45CB:656C:DF6B:4DC7 (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Future event. If that happens then someone can recreate it. We wouldn't usually keep articles based on 'what ifs'. Knitsey (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page can always be recreated or rewritten if that ever does happen. There’s no hope of “losing information” since all the information is supposed to come from other sources anyways. ApexParagon (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if jaydes can be on Wikipedia, so can wifiskeleton. unfair deletion it's just not that deep the guys literally gone, mad disrespectful honestly, just keep it up Drunu (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC) — Drunu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
and I say this not just because, its because how close in numbers they are and in popularity. I'd argue skeleton is even more popular due to him having many names and once being a popular youtuber. Drunu (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FAME. He may have been a popular YouTuber, but that doesn't mean he was necessarily notable. PolarisNC 17:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he is notable for his music and his channel. Drunu (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator, it doesn't pass W WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. The tabloid source can easily be replaced but there is little point as the only thing he is notable for is being dead under unclear circumstances. All the other links are pointless (they don't count towards notability (self/user generated). I can't find any coverage that counts towrds notability before his death. Knitsey (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. No notable sources, primary or secondary, about him exist before or after his death. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that if this article is kept, shouldn't it be stylized in lowercase as wifiskeleton and not WifiSkeleton, as Spotify and other music sites like last.fm show? PolarisNC 15:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not snow delete; "...I Already Died" is currently on this week's UK singles chart update and may pass WP:MUSICBIO#C2 on Friday. WP:TNT applies to most of the prose though.--Launchballer 18:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that event, and in light of the problematic BLP editing at this namespace, might it be more practical to TNT it for a redirect to the namespace of the single? That might head off some of the need for protection from BLP edits generally, or at least encourage their restriction to a portion of an article on the single. JFHJr (㊟) 21:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: very notable enough to be included in this article. —EnjoyBooms (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC) — EnjoyBooms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
One more single-purpose account voting keep without providing a viable reason. It's getting ridiculous at this point. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 06:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you still find the sources of this article, such as journals and newspapers? If there so, it might be notable. What defines this person being noteworthy? How could this article be updated in 10 years? 205.155.225.249 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eddsworld has an article for this exact reason. If wifiskeleton loses his page then get rid of Eddsworld too 184.146.14.198 (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what else? 205.155.225.249 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you provided an argument to me, then I would vote for strong and speedy keep. 205.155.225.249 (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If you look at the fansite, there are some information. But I agree with others, he would have been notable. Does the music industry have an impact? 2600:1700:78EA:450:4537:9DB6:C80C:63DD (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:UGC, fansites are generally not allowed. PolarisNC (they/them) 11:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fansites are not viable sources. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 12:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he impacted the music industry in some way. Cyb3rstarz (talk) 14:03, 15 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WifiSkeleton&oldid=1290578152"