StoneToss: (Previous discussions: [5] , [6] )  As observed in WP:BEFORE , the subject status has not changed since the previous 2 deletions - that of a controversial social media artist.  As before, the article struggles with WP:RS and WP:NPOV .  Article is also WP:BLP and does not appear to contain any listed item to satisfy WP:ARTIST .  All sourced material to the subject involve activity that occur exclusively on social media.  The article first sentence, short description, and page category refers to the subject as a "neo-nazi" cartoonist.  This is despite the claim being disputed by the subject within the sourced materials itself.  [7] [8] WP:NPOV Other material for the article include; sources from political outlets [9] [10] including those calling for the subject's deplatforming [11] per WP:RS , sources that include only short or single-sentence blurbs on the subject [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] WP:SIGCOV , and sources listed as dubious by wikipedia [18] [19] WP:RS .  One notable source [20] claims that the subject is a neo-nazi, but itself references a single quote by a user banned on the X platform in relation to the subject.  In every single case, the referenced material exclusively concerns interactions on social media.  As one source [21] states, "this case is remarkable because no-one outside of extremely online spaces cares."  Fails WP:ARTIST criterion.  GoggleGoose ( talk ) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Webcomics , Politics ,  and Internet .  GoggleGoose ( talk ) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm divided, because, on one hand, I'd like to see Wikipedia have far fewer articles about random internet personalities.  Unfortunately the extent of this specific personality's involvement in far-right radicalization within the United States likely makes him somewhat notable.  Ultimately I would say that the references at the SPLC and the ADL indicate more notability than simply showing up on Wired and, on that basis, I'd argue for Weak Keep Simonm223 ( talk ) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose .  Both articles contain only a single sentence in reference to the subject [22] [23] An obvious example of a WP:SIGCOV problem.  GoggleGoose ( talk ) 16:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Delete – While StoneToss has become somewhat more notable recently, it is going to be near impossible to keep within the guidelines of WP:NPOV for WP:BLP for this article given the number of detractors he has.  GranCavallo ( talk ) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete .  Outside of the doxxing incident, he has received little significant coverage.  Perhaps some of this content can be merged into Alt-right pipeline or a similar article?  Estreyeria ( talk ) 18:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per WP:RS , WP:NPOV and WP:BLP concerns by nom.  XtraJovial ( talk • contribs ) 18:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose rewrite the article from a neutral point of view.  trainrobber >be me 19:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What is POV about it?  208.87.236.202 ( talk ) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is nothing POV about the article.  The article reflects WP:RS .  Tar nis hed Path talk 05:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Include - Is notable and influential in the far-right scene.  I'm surprised this matter is even contentious.  Roadtruck ( talk ) 19:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE SWinxy ( talk ) 00:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Concerns about adhering to WP:NPOV are not by themselves sufficient to justify deleting an article, since editors have navigated this on similar WP:BLP topics like the articles for Ben Shapiro and Thomas Robb.  Stonetoss having many detractors is not a major issue since most of his detractors are not Wikipedia editors and some of his most vocal supporters are likely to be editors as well (generalizing based on the wider population).  I would be willing to take on the task of rewriting this article in a neutral POV.  The claim that this article's existence hinges on social media interactions is inaccurate, since Stonetoss has a long history of publishing comics that espouse the author's views such as [this anti-Semitic one (Archive link [url= https://web.archive.org/web/20240117231253/https://stonetoss.com/comic/as-above-so-below/ ]).  Publishing content on the internet that is subsequently reblogged on social media sites does not seem sufficient to describe someone as a "social media artist".  As far as notability is concerned, I might have been favour of moving the content to a "far right pipeline" or similar article, even after the doxxing incident, but X/Twitter removing mentions of Stonetoss' identity and suppressing journalist accounts elevates the notability of the original account and will result in increased searches for the author's online name.  The figure is notable in far right circles, even though far right views are niche among the general population.  TROPtastic ( talk ) 19:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Publishing content on the internet that is subsequently reblogged on social media sites does not seem sufficient to describe someone as a "social media artist".  When those reblogs are from the creator themself , it most certainly does.  Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 03:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In support of @ Brusquedandelion 's point, the majority of the article cites a Twitter/X controversy and a single one at that. GoggleGoose ( talk ) 05:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The first four references (Wired, Boing Boing, Daily Dot, and Mashable) all seem to show significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:RSPS lists Wired as "generally reliable," Boing Boing as "no consensus on the reliability ... some of its articles are written by subject-matter experts ," Daily Dot as "no consensus regarding the general reliability," and Mashable as "non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine."  Elspea756 ( talk ) 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to 2024 StoneToss controversy or something like that. I don't know whether he can be argued to be notable as a cartoonist, but X's response of aggressively clamping down on efforts to spread the article or even post the subject's name despite it not being per se a TOS violation after StoneToss personally appealed to Musk to do so is definitely getting the kind of coverage to make notability beyond question, especially in light of the apparent double standard regarding deadnaming of trans figures on the platform and Musk's relative inaction in that area. (And if we do do this, we should not publish the subject's name and at least RevDel any previous appearances. I don't care what an execrable human being he probably is, his identity was disclosed without his consent despite his efforts (documented by ACC, no less) to keep it a secret. ACC and all the others spreading it around may have their reasons, and I may agree with them, but Wikipedia does not have to , and should not be, part of this). We can only if he decides to confirm all this and discuss it. Daniel Case ( talk ) 20:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose split the article into two. The 'incident' and the 'webcomic' trainrobber >be me 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The “incident” would not pass WP:NEVENT .  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 22:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They're likely only notable now because of the "incident".  I didn't see notability last time about just the webcomic.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose , there's no need for a split .  When people are searching for information about this they'll be searching for StoneToss alone.  Tar nis hed Path talk 05:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - In agreement with replies from @ PARAKANYAA , the failure of the subject's notability in the two prior deletion discussions isn't helped with the singular Twitter/X event GoggleGoose ( talk ) 05:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Elspea, coverage by RSes has changed since the last nom.  3df ( talk ) 21:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  None of these sources show any more notability than the past discussion.  They’re all in the context of one event ( WP:BLP1E ), him getting doxed, and none of the reliable sources analyze his works.  The new sources in existence do not actually discuss what would, hypothetically, be notable about him - the content of his comics.  He got doxed, and then people got banned for reporting on it.  Add that to the article about controversies relating to Twitter that I’m sure we have.  Why would we have an article on an artist, especially a political one, when their works are barely discussed in the sources we have on them?  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 22:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If their works are barely discussed in the sources we have on them, how are we able to have the content found in Special:Permalink/1214892159#Content and reception ?  — Alalch E. 22:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking at the sources in this section, ADL - passing mention GNET report - passing mention GNET - mentions him exclusively in the context of a Reddit conflict with little analysis of what he actually says besides racist the daily dot - listed as no consensus on reliability; IMO they are not good for notability when it comes to the internet because they have a penchant for covering random internet drama that no other outlet cares about ECPS - this one is good CEP - this is an opinion blog PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 00:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, that's a fair analysis, but but this is also SIGCOV: Marlin-Bennett, Renée; Jackson, Susan T (February 9, 2022).  "DIY Cruelty: The Global Political Micro-Practices of Hateful Memes" .  Global Studies Quarterly .  2 (2).  doi : 10.1093/isagsq/ksac002 .  ISSN 2634-3797 .  Archived from the original on March 21, 2024 .  Retrieved March 17, 2024 .  (94 words, goes into intricate detail, discusses the webcomic's impact on certain online communities) — Alalch E. 01:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll note to PARAKANYAA and others that it's not necessary that they be notable for "the content of his comics."  They can be the author of the least notable comic book on the planet and still be notable for some other reason.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 02:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is nothing WP:SIGCOV in the article you linked.  A mere three sentences are referring to webcomic out of the whole article, the opposite of "intricate detail".  Indeed, the same source was referenced as an example of lack of WP:SIGCOV in prior deletion discussions.  GoggleGoose ( talk ) 04:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nah, that's also SIGCOV, and whoever thought it wasn't was just wrong.  — Alalch E. 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep they are very well known online and on social media, and very controversial as well.  rename perhaps?  108.49.72.125 ( talk ) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to what?  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 00:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] something like "2024 Stonetoss controversy" like another user suggested or something along those lines 108.49.72.125 ( talk ) 02:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources 1 and 8 talk about the individual and the Twitter accounts that got banned, and the events around this decision.  Likely somewhat more notability now than when I ! voted last time, given what's happened.  Should be ok for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I started out editing Wikipedia by successfully deleting dozens of vanity webcomics.  This is more notable than all of those combined, backed up with many reliable sources, even before his recent outing.  And it's fine to mention the author's name after it has been covered by reliable sources, it's those sources we base our judgement by.  The media have a history of unmasking pseudonyms , I think we're overdue a new Banksy or Satoshi Nakamoto outing.  - hahnch e n 02:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - We're not here to right great wrongs or to virtue signal, we're here to determine whether a subject meets our standards for inclusion based upon the General Notability Guideline or some focused Special Notability Guideline.  This subject in the wake of widespread current coverage in addition to past coverage, clearly does.  Fuck the alt right, but that's neither here nor there.  Carrite ( talk ) 05:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject clearly has WP:SIGCOV and passes WP:GNG .  We're not here to WP:RGW .  We're here to reflect what WP:RS have to say.  Tar nis hed Path talk 05:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It seems to me, judging by the sources, this comic clearly passes GNG.  Di (they-them) ( talk ) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Deletion is not cleanup, and whether to describe him as "neo-Nazi" in Wikivoice is something that should be discussed, rather than used as an argument for deletion.  Subject passes WP:GNG , so whether he passes WP:ARTIST or not shouldn't be a relevant factor.  Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 10:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : By the way, I want to point out that the arguments regarding StoneToss being unimportant to people who aren't "extremely online" or that the article is only about social media usage are unconvincing in my opinion.  I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS , but still, if dril can be a Good Article I don't see why we would need to delete an article on the basis of somebody being a pseudonymous Twitter user.  Di (they-them) ( talk ) 10:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Clearly passes GNG.  Schierbecker ( talk ) 14:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article may need to be reworked but StoneToss as a comic is notable, and there is a lot of news coverage on it.  RPI2026F1 ( talk ) 14:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It's worth noting that the page [24] of the individual named in connection with the article has already been deleted per WP:G10 , gross abuse of WP:BLP .  As noted in the previous two successful deletion nominations, the subject and its controversy tends to suffer from WP:NPOV and might be the subject to WP:BATTLE .  Some users claim no issue with WP:GNG , but as per Wikipedia:Notability (people) , which covers biographies of living persons, the relevant criteria is WP:ARTIST and remains unsatisfied.  ( WP:GNG specifically links to Wikipedia:Notability (people) in that case).  Most of the cited coverage is complaining about the content and not much else.  A chartable interpretation might be that the subject is WP:BLP1E for being recently doxed, but the consensus of the prior two deletion discussions is that, on its own, the subject's status is just a controversial twitter user.  MiniMayor98 ( talk ) 15:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SNG do not override WP:GNG , and subject-specific notability guidelines are not requirements if the general one is satisfied.  Very explictly, Wikipedia:Notability (people) links to GNG and restates it, saying People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below.  , and later A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability .  (emphasis not mine)  Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 16:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you name which Wikipedia policy says calling a spade a spade is somehow not neutral?  If reliable sources are calling Stonetoss a Nazi, I fail to see how that is an NPOV violation.  Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 03:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : encyclopedically relevant topic with sufficient sourcing already in the article to meet WP:GNG .  -- K.e.coffman ( talk ) 15:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep More than enough ongoing WP:RS -based coverage to pass WP:GNG .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 16:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Multiple reliable sources cover the comic and person behind it, and deletion is not clean up .  Justarandomamerican ( talk ) Have a good day!  19:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Almost all the article content is about the author's doxxing, and almost all the rest is about alt-right meme culture and Twitter drama generally, of which StoneToss is a small part.  On its own, not sufficiently notable as either a cultural force or a webcomic.  Candent shlimazel ( talk ) 21:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If the subject is such a small part of it, why is there significant coverage of the webcomic?  — Alalch E. 22:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] At present the total article size is 17,220 bytes in size and the section regarding the alleged revelation of their identity is 7,019 bytes in size.  Therefore your statement that "[a]lmost all the article content is about the author's doxxing" is plainly incorrect.  Tar nis hed Path talk 01:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If we want text size alone (no references, templates, etc., just the amount of text content that shows up), that's 4934 bytes and 1889 bytes respectively, so still very far from "almost all".  Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 01:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In any case, not even a good argument for deletion regardless of whether it was even close.  Tar nis hed Path talk 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If we're measuring the text in words and not bytes, like humans who read Wikipedia , doxxing content is 365/779 words, or 46.9%.  Not half, but close.  Getting doxxed and clowned on by reddit and being a small and relatively uninfluential part of a broad phenomenon – there: that's the whole article – does not make a subject notable.  Candent shlimazel ( talk ) 11:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with @ Candent shlimazel , as noted in the nom the previous 2 deletion requests could not find notability for an article, and the only update since was a twitter controversy.  GoggleGoose ( talk ) 05:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't quite come to an opinion on deletion or not but Stonetoss is not just "a small part" of alt-right meme culture, he's almost certainly the best known alt-right comic creator nowadays.  Alexschmidt711 ( talk ) 02:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sufficient coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG , as noted above.  Isi96 ( talk ) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There are plenty of good sources here.  The naming controversy is the largest single aspect getting coverage but this is far from being BLP1E.  -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 01:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is just to add that I also oppose any split or rename.  There is no distinct second topic here.  The comic, its author and his controversies are all aspects of a single topic which is called "StoneToss" and which is the subject of this article.  DanielRigal ( talk ) 15:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I am not seeing any particular evidence to challenge the notability of the subject.  Dympies ( talk ) 03:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There are enough independent, reliable sources.  Their coverage of him as a topic is holistic (the comics, ideology, online influence, previous comics, identity), not in saccade or in relation only to one specific event (re: BLP1E or sporadic coverage concerns).  The RS concerns are misstated ("political outlets" is not a reliability categorisation), and so are the BLP concerns (subject denials of labels like "neo-nazi" are not given consideration when deciding neutrality).  More subjectively and less policy-based: his cultural "influence" is sustained (duration) and wide enough (leftist attempts to reclaim, and use by Stonetoss of numerous "gateway/radicalization pipeline" memes, like the Bitcoin one, that look innocuous and get widely shared by normies) that having an article seems appropriate.  DFlhb ( talk ) 04:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Well said.  In fact, with reference to the reliability of "political outlets" I would generally treat the SPLC, for example, as more reliable and a greater indicator of notability than general media when addressing notable far-right figures.  Simonm223 ( talk ) 14:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose .  Statements in your comment are simply incorrect.  You state, "subject denials of labels like "neo-nazi" are not given consideration when deciding neutrality" is false.  Such a denial, particularly when they appear in secondary sources as noted in the nom, are permissible per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS .  This is in addition to the fact that "nazi" is considered a "word to watch" per MOS:LABEL (the WP:BLP concern you glossed over).  The WP:RS issue also goes beyond simply "misstated" political outlets (neither source was rated by WP:RSP , by the way) .  While biased sources are permitted with caution per WP:PARTISAN , they are just one of the issues listed by the nom.  It also includes sources that were deemed insufficiently WP:RS in the prior 2 deletion discussions.  Again, as now and in the prior deletions, coverage of the subject focuses on drama occurring on social media.  GoggleGoose ( talk ) 08:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GoggleGoose , not being rated on WP:RSP is not a statement against a source.  To imply that it is displays a fundamental lack of understanding with how WP:RSP and WP:RS/N operate.  Tar nis hed Path talk 08:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't mention it as a statement against a source.  I mentioned it to clarify I wasn't doubting a source that might already exist on WP:RSP .  GoggleGoose ( talk ) 09:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per DFlhb.  A normal topic of encyclopedic interest that obviously can be suitably covered. — Alalch E. 14:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's it?  At WP:ANI you had written ( diff ): Update: I edited the draft, moved it to mainspace based on my editorial judgement, as I found various existing sources, and new significant coverage did materialize in the last few days, then another camel-case-username account appeared from a user who had emailed WMF claiming libel and tagged for G10,

Discussion outcome: keep