Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Contino: Difference between revisions

Lilly Contino

[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!

Lilly Contino (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)

Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Coverage is tied to a two incidents, not enough for lasting notability—see WP:BLP1E. Sources are mostly local news or advocacy stuff, not deep or independent enough per WP:RS. Her gaming and social media gigs don’t get serious attention in solid outlets. Delete or redirect. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions.

• Comment not that I'm moved one way or the other yet, but surely Coverage is tied to a couple incidents (emphasis added; nom changed 'couple' to 'two' after I posted this comment) and WP:BLP1E are contradictory, no? (see WP:BLP2E) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Respectfully — no. That’s exactly the point. WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP2E exist to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a permanent record for individuals only known due to a small number of controversies or viral moments. The subject of this article is not independently notable — the “coverage” amounts to reactionary media commentary about the incidents, not about her as a person in any substantive or sustained way.

  We’re not talking about someone with a career, long-term recognition, or encyclopedic significance. We’re talking about fleeting media attention tied to drama. “A couple incidents” is literally the textbook definition of BLP1E, and trying to twist that into a justification for notability is a dangerous precedent.

  Wikipedia is not a tabloid. It’s not a diary of internet virality. And it sure as hell isn’t here to eternally memorialize people for 15 minutes of controversial fame. If the coverage dies with the event, so should the article. Per policy, this should be deleted.

  — End of story. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Coverage in 2022, 2023 and this in 2025 [1]. Some analysis here [2], so another coverage found in 2025. Not so notable for the various "issues", but being a streamer, of which we have ample confirmation. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  The Toronto Sun article cited (“NO LONGER FEEL SAFE”) is another incident-focused tabloid-style piece. It doesn’t provide in-depth or sustained coverage of Contino’s career. The academic analysis cited (a speech acts paper) is not journalistic coverage and is hosted on ResearchGate, which is user-contributed and generally not considered a reliable secondary source for establishing notability.

  There is no significant, independent, and reliable secondary source coverage that discusses the subject in detail beyond viral moments. Lacks the depth required to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Delete. Momentoftrue (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:SIGCOV. The rule has a number as its middle name: BLP1E, not BLP2E nor BLP3E. Life is now a series of viral moments, and it might have been always this way. We have never deleted an article, as far as I can recall in the tens of thousands that I've participated in, where a person who was known for two separate events to be deleted, with the exception of political candidates being held to a higher standard, to screen out all but perennial candidates. The consensus might be faulty but hasn't changed yet. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  With respect, that interpretation stretches WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG beyond their intent. This isn’t about counting events — the core issue is quality and depth of coverage, not just quantity.

  The Toronto Sun piece is incident-driven, reactive, and tabloid-style — it doesn’t offer any sustained analysis of Contino as a public figure. The ResearchGate article is academic, not independent journalistic coverage, and is hosted on a user-upload platform, not a recognized mainstream publisher. Neither source meets the standard for significant, independent, and reliable secondary coverage as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

  While “life is now a series of viral moments,” Wikipedia’s inclusion standards haven’t changed: viral ≠ notable. Two viral events with no in-depth profile or sustained coverage don’t override WP:BLP1E — which still applies where coverage is narrowly event-focused and fails to establish enduring notability.

  We’re not here to build permanent encyclopedic entries from fleeting internet controversies. If a subject’s only enduring relevance is through misgendering incidents that go viral, that’s precisely the kind of situation WP:BLP1E warns against.

Additionally, viral incidents—even when notable events—do not automatically justify an independent article. Often, these topics are better suited to be covered within broader articles or merged elsewhere, to avoid creating pages based primarily on fleeting internet attention.

• Redirect or delete. Momentoftrue (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. After reviewing all sources, there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most references are either incident-only (triggering WP:BLP1E), promotional, or do not meet reliability standards. Here's a breakdown:

• WeWork.com – Corporate blog; not independent, not reliable, no significant coverage.
• PocketGamer.biz – Interview published while subject worked at Ryu Games; borderline source, promotional tone, fails independence.
• GameDeveloper.com – Author profile, not coverage about the subject. Not independent or significant.
• 48 Hills – Local alternative outlet; mildly reliable but not in-depth or sustained coverage. Does not establish notability.
• CBS News, The Hill, Advocate, KRON4, Daily Dot, LGBTQ Nation – All focus on one of two viral incidents (either the Cheesecake Factory confrontation or the Crown & Crumpet livestream hoax). These are WP:BLP1E events and do not provide broader notability or career-spanning coverage.

In short, there is no meaningful coverage establishing lasting notability beyond two viral moments. Subject does not meet inclusion criteria under notability guidelines. Momentoftrue (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This article was created by User:Willthacheerleader18, who has created a number of similar articles on internet personalities. A current example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katelyn MacDonald, which is also under AfD discussion due to concerns related to WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. The pattern of creating biographies based on recent or viral incidents — rather than long-term, significant coverage in reliable sources — raises questions about whether these articles meet inclusion standards. This does not reflect on the subjects themselves, but highlights the need to apply Wikipedia’s notability criteria consistently. Momentoftrue (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • • Yes, I created the article (and was surprised to find I was not given notice about it's nomination for deletion.. so thank you for mentioning me here!). I have written a number of articles on TikTokers, as a member of the WikiProject TikTok. I created MacDonald's article this year, and Contino's article last year, while participating in LGBTQ+ edit-a-thons created by WikiProject Women in Red. I do not have a strong opinion either way whether or not this article is deleted. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

    Response: Thank you for clarifying your role and intentions. However, Wikipedia’s inclusion standards must be applied impartially, regardless of how an article was created or the good-faith motivations behind edit-a-thons. Here are the critical points:

    1. 1. Intentions Don’t Override Notability Policy  

    Participation in WikiProject TikTok or Women in Red and enthusiasm for representation are commendable, but they cannot bypass WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON. An article’s merit rests entirely on whether independent, reliable sources provide substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject beyond fleeting viral moments.

    1. 2. Coverage Remains Event-Driven and Shallow  

    As previously noted, nearly all reliable coverage of Lilly Contino is tied to two similar viral incidents (Cheesecake Factory misgendering, Crown & Crumpet prank). These produce short news briefs or opinion-style blog posts, not long-form journalistic profiles or analytical features that treat Contino as a figure of lasting significance. This pattern fails the “substantial coverage” threshold required by WP:NPERSON and WP:SIGCOV.

    1. 3. BLP1E Applies Squarely  

    WP:BLP1E exists to prevent standalone biographies based solely on a small number of events. Even if multiple events occurred, they are of the same nature—viral controversies without broader context or ongoing achievements. Creating multiple similar articles in edit-a-thons magnifies this issue rather than resolving it. The policy warns precisely against this: a subject known only for episodic viral attention does not warrant a permanent entry.

    1. 4. Independence and Reliability of Sources  

    Many sources are local or advocacy-leaning, or retell the same incidents across outlets. There is no evidence of independent, investigative coverage of Contino’s career (e.g., video game writing, lasting impact as a critic). Academic papers on speech acts do not count as independent journalistic coverage establishing notability. Promotional interviews and author profiles likewise fail to establish notability under WP:RS.

    1. 5. Precedent and Consistency  

    Allowing this article to remain simply because it was created via an edit-a-thon sets a dangerous precedent: any viral figure with minimal coverage could be added en masse during events, swelling Wikipedia with entries lacking true encyclopedic value. Consistency demands that we apply notability criteria uniformly, regardless of how articles originate.

    1. 6. Neutrality and Good Faith  

    This response is not an attack on contributors or on efforts to improve representation. It is a strict application of policy: if the topic doesn’t meet the standards, the article should be deleted or redirected. Good faith editing still requires adherence to notability and reliable sourcing.

    Conclusion: Despite the effort and intentions behind its creation, the Lilly Contino article does not satisfy Wikipedia’s notability requirements. The sources reflect fleeting viral incidents rather than sustained, in-depth coverage of lasting impact. Therefore, the article must be deleted (or at most redirected into a broader topic).   Momentoftrue (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

This was entirely unnecessary to type out as I am not arguing for keeping the article. I did not claim that intentions override policy, nor did I suggest any argument against any claims you've made. I created the articles because I believed them to pass WP:GNG. If you feel that is not the case, totally fine by me. As I stated, I am not voting on this. Please save your lecture for someone else. And next time please remember that You should notify the article's creator or other significant contributors by adding a tag or other appropriate text to contributor talk pages. -- Willthacheerleader18

Understood — and to be clear, my reply wasn’t about your vote (or lack thereof), but about clarifying the notability issues tied to article creation patterns that keep recurring at AfD, especially when they lean on borderline WP:GNG interpretations for recent viral figures.

As for the notification, fair point — I’ve since followed up accordingly. But let’s not pretend context doesn’t matter here. When an article’s inclusion is based on passing GNG through incident-driven press, it’s absolutely relevant to examine how those assumptions play out across similar cases.

This isn’t personal — it’s procedural. If the article doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, then discussing the basis for its creation is part of the AfD process, whether someone casts a !vote or not. Momentoftrue (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a nomination discussion for one article, not a discussion about patterns with AfD nominations and rationales. Furthermore, that point could/should have been made in your original nomination, not by berating the article creator who, other than acknowledging that this nomination exists, was not taking part in the nomination discussion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

If pointing out policy violations and systemic patterns that are clearly influencing article creation is “berating,” then maybe the issue isn’t the tone — it’s that the critique hit a nerve.

Let’s be real: this article wasn’t created organically based on strong SIGCOV. It was drafted in the middle of an edit-a-thon with a political advocacy goal in mind — your own words confirm this. That’s not just relevant context; it’s a red flag under WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:POVFORK. When coverage is shallow, event-driven, and duplicated across multiple bios, and those bios are systematically produced during representation-focused drives, then yes — it's absolutely fair to raise this *within* an AfD.

This *is* about one article, but it’s also about how it came to exist — and that’s entirely valid to scrutinize. If the same sourcing pattern (brief viral news, no depth, no sustained independent attention) keeps surfacing, and if those articles are being batch-produced in advocacy-driven sprints, then AfD isn’t the wrong place to raise that. It’s *the exact right place*. Pretending otherwise is a convenient way to deflect from policy, not defend it.

No one’s questioning your good faith or motivations. But let’s stop pretending good intentions immunize content from policy scrutiny. Wikipedia has inclusion standards for a reason, and editorial accountability doesn’t get suspended because the subject is part of a social justice campaign.

You’re welcome to disengage from the discussion, but you don’t get to dictate what parts of the sourcing and editorial history are “appropriate” to analyze. This isn’t a personal attack. It’s a necessary look at a growing pattern that’s diluting the encyclopedia with biographies that do not meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:BLP1E. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you read through Wikipedia:Civility before you continuing engaging with other editors. "political advocacy goal in mind — your own words confirm this", Oh really? Which words of mine confirm that I created this article with a "political advocacy goal" in mind? What "social justice campaign" am I supposedly a part of? Are you claiming that writing about queer people, or women in general, ,must always be from a mindset of political advocacy? Is writing about men then? People of color? You've been notified various times in this discussion by other editors and now I shall remind you again, don't bludgeon the process. And don't make accusations against other editors. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Let’s clear something up right now — no one said that writing about queer people, women, or any marginalized group is inherently political. That’s a mischaracterization, and frankly, a deflection.

What was said — and what I stand by — is that creating multiple articles during themed edit-a-thons focused on identity, without ensuring those subjects meet core notability criteria, creates an appearance (key word: appearance) of prioritizing representation over encyclopedic standards. That’s not an accusation — that’s pattern recognition based on edit history and stated affiliations. If that observation makes you uncomfortable, maybe the focus should be on ensuring the articles can withstand scrutiny, not on painting valid criticism as “uncivil.”

As for “bludgeoning,” let’s stop misusing that word. This is a content discussion, not a vibe check. If several keep !votes repeat the same flawed reasoning — such as mistaking fleeting, incident-driven media coverage for lasting notability — then yes, those points get addressed. That’s not bludgeoning. That’s defending the integrity of Wikipedia’s standards. You don’t get to cry “bludgeon” every time someone challenges your rationale with actual policy.

And if you truly believe raising concerns about how and why biographies are being added — especially when notability is marginal — counts as a personal attack, then you may need to re-read WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:DISPUTE, and WP:OWN. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You claimed I am using Wikipedia for advocacy when I have not. You claimed that I was politically motivated, which I am not. You are calling into question my integrity as an editor, which is not what is in question here in this nomination discussion. I am not deflecting, I am reminding you to behave properly in a deletion discussion, which you have completely disregarded. Need I remind you that Wikipedia is not a battleground nor is it about winning. Behave accordingly. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You keep invoking civility and decorum, yet you’re mischaracterizing legitimate scrutiny of editing patterns and policy compliance as a personal attack — that’s not how AfD works. This is not about your personal integrity, and if you perceive it that way, that’s a problem of framing — not of conduct.

Let’s be precise: I raised concerns tied to article creation patterns during themed edit-a-thons that repeatedly intersect with borderline notability. That’s not a reflection on you as a person; it’s a reflection on editorial outcomes. If pointing out that trend feels accusatory, perhaps it’s because it surfaces a discomfort with what the policies actually require — WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPERSON — and how they’re being tested here.

Wikipedia isn’t a battleground — but it’s also not a sanctuary for unexamined assumptions. Discussions like these are exactly where hard policy distinctions must be made. Not based on who created the article, but on whether its inclusion dilutes the encyclopedic value we’re all here to preserve.

So let’s not pretend civility is violated when someone demands rigor. No one accused you of “being politically motivated” — I described how repeated contributions centered on identity topics during advocacy-themed edit events can resemble a political project if not checked against policy. That’s a structural critique, not a personal one. If you believe there’s no tension between that pattern and notability, you’re free to argue that — on policy grounds, not moral outrage.

This isn’t about winning. It’s about whether we, as editors, are willing to say that good faith alone doesn’t entitle an article to survive if the subject lacks durable, independent coverage. If that’s uncomfortable, it’s not incivility. It’s the encyclopedia doing what it’s meant to do. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Let’s clear something up right now- you are not behaving civilly. You have made your point a hundred times. Frankly, I'm tired of this spam. Good day. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

If calling policy-based critique “spam” is the only way you can disengage from legitimate scrutiny, that says more about the strength of your position than mine. Repeating a point isn’t uncivil — especially when the point remains unaddressed. What is uncivil is trying to shut down a contributor by declaring exhaustion instead of responding with policy.

Let’s be clear: Wikipedia is not governed by vibes or by who gets tired first. It’s governed by content policies — WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E — and those remain at the center of this discussion. If you’re “tired” of seeing them cited, perhaps it’s because they’re inconvenient to the outcome you’re hoping for.

Calling this “spam” is rhetorical deflection. This isn’t Reddit. This is a deletion discussion. The process demands rigor — not emotional fatigue, not personal offense, and certainly not a premature exit masked as moral high ground.

You said “good day.” Wikipedia says “see it through.” Momentoftrue (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Critique is not spam. Berating every person who offers a different opinion regarding policy or validity of an article (which I did not, mind you) with paragraphs of text reiterating the same information over and over again is, in fact, spam. I never claimed that "Wikipedia is not governed by vibes or by who gets tired first", so why you feel the need to berate me about such matters is beyond me. I am very tired of engaging with you, regardless. What "outcome" am I "hoping for"? I clearly stated multiple times that I have no strong feelings about this discussion. I am fine with the article being kept or deleted. Good grief. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

No — what you call “spam” is persistence. What you call “berating” is the repetition of unrefuted facts. What you call “paragraphs” is called argumentation, and it’s the backbone of AfD — not a nuisance to be hand-waved when inconvenient.

You’ve now pivoted from misrepresenting my position to mischaracterizing the very function of this process. Let’s break it down:

“Berating every person who offers a different opinion…”

Except you haven’t offered a different opinion. You explicitly said you’re not voting to keep the article. So what you’re objecting to isn’t disagreement — it’s discomfort with scrutiny. You object not because the arguments are wrong, but because they’re relentless. That’s not “spam.” That’s called consistency — and it’s what happens when policy is applied without bending to personal sentiment.

“Reiterating the same information over and over again…”

Yes. Because the same violations are recurring — and they remain unaddressed. Policy doesn’t change because someone grows weary of hearing it. If repetition makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps consider how often editors have had to cite WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, and WP:NOTNEWS just to hold the line.

“Critique is not spam…”

Then you should know: policy-backed critique that challenges systemic patterns is the most vital form of critique Wikipedia has. It’s not noise — it’s friction. It’s how we stop this encyclopedia from becoming a reaction blog fueled by viral moments and advocacy-driven creation. This isn’t about you. It’s not about me. It’s about the integrity of the project.

You say “good day.” I say: this is AfD — not a coffee shop. If you don’t like long responses, you’re in the wrong venue. Because Wikipedia, unlike social media, doesn’t reward brevity over substance. And if the truth is long, it will be typed — again and again — until it’s finally read. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Enough. This argument has gone far past the topic of whether to keep or delete Lilly Contino and the entire debate is flooded with walls of text reiterating the same points over and over. The conversation is being bludgeoned to death at this point. Cool off and keep future conversation here civil and concise Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 20:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

No.

Enough is when policy has been upheld, not when discomfort reaches a boiling point.

Let’s be perfectly clear: this isn’t “bludgeoning.” This is holding the line when attempts at dilution, derailment, and passive-aggressive tone-shaming try to drown out legitimate critique with cries of exhaustion. If the conversation feels “flooded,” it’s because the policies being ignored are ocean-deep — and defending this project from erosion demands we swim in it.

You say this has gone “far past” the topic. I disagree. It is precisely on topic when the creation of an article represents not an isolated lapse, but part of a broader pattern: one that sidesteps WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, and WP:BLP1E through emotional appeal, surface-level coverage, and the insulation of assumed good intent. That pattern must be interrogated.

Let’s not pretend that length is the enemy here — vagueness is.

Let’s not pretend that repetition is the crime — silence in the face of failed sourcing is.

Conciseness is not a virtue when it’s used to truncate scrutiny.

Civility is not a shield when it’s deployed selectively to protect comfort over policy.

You may call it “bludgeoning” — but I call it the inevitable result of an unwillingness to engage the actual argument.

If a point has to be repeated, it’s because it keeps getting deflected, minimized, or ignored.

So no — I won’t “cool off.” I wasn’t heated. I was focused.

And I will remain focused until every last ounce of this article — and others built on similar quicksand — is measured not by emotion or exhaustion, but by notability, sourcing, and the rules that make Wikipedia what it is.

The temperature of the conversation doesn’t matter.

The strength of the argument does. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Critique isn’t spam — you’re right. But when critique is met with defensiveness masquerading as detachment, don’t expect silence in return. You entered this discussion. You participated. Now you want to cry exhaustion when confronted with a full, unblinking analysis of your contributions? That’s not “being tired.” That’s dodging.

You say you haven’t argued for the article.

You say you don’t care what happens.

You say you’re “tired.”

But here you are — again — investing more energy into tone-policing responses than addressing a single actual policy cited.

“Berating every person who offers a different opinion…”

Except you haven’t offered a policy-based “opinion” at all. You’ve offered affect — exhaustion, disengagement, performative neutrality — and expected that to insulate you from pushback. It doesn’t.

“With paragraphs of text…”

That’s called argumentation. If you wanted Twitter threads and emoji reactions, you’re on the wrong site. Wikipedia’s foundation is deliberate, sourced, structured reasoning. The fact that the arguments are long doesn’t make them spam — it makes them thorough. And maybe that’s the problem: this process doesn’t bend to who gets “tired” first.

You’ve now made this about your personal feelings of fatigue, when the core issue is one you still refuse to address: a repeated pattern of creating articles about individuals based solely on viral incidents, with no sustained, significant coverage. That’s not just a content problem — it’s a systemic notability failure.

“What outcome am I hoping for?”

Let’s stop playing coy. The pattern is clear. A string of articles created through the same methodology, relying on borderline sources, timed to advocacy-driven edit-a-thons. Whether you “feel strongly” or not doesn’t change the effect: it dilutes Wikipedia’s standards. That’s not an opinion — that’s policy enforcement.

So no — this isn’t about “good grief.” This is about good policy.

And if citing WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV with full analysis is now called “berating,” then maybe the real issue is that the arguments aren’t wrong — just uncomfortable.

Wikipedia is not governed by who runs out of patience first.

And if that makes you tired, then step back.

But don’t mistake persistence for hostility — it’s simply what happens when someone refuses to let the rules get buried beneath feelings. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. As I stated before, I am not voting in this discussion. I merely joined to acknowledge that I saw the discussion was going on, since you neglected to follow the proper protocol by alerting me on my talk page. Since then, I've merely been responding to your accusations towards me, which are not relevant to the discussion at hand. This discussion is for reaching consensus on whether or not the subject is notable. I recuse myself from this, as I have no strong opinion on the matter. Good luck to you all, I hope consensus can be reached with civility. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Acknowledging the discussion and then claiming detachment doesn’t exempt you from scrutiny — especially when the article under review is your creation and your name has become a recurring presence across multiple similarly situated deletions. You don’t get to step back into neutrality midstream while simultaneously framing every correction of record as a personal “accusation.”

Let’s dissect that mask of recusal a little closer.

You say you’re “not voting.” Noted.

But what you are doing is trying to redirect every policy-based critique of article pattern creation into a conversation about tone, intent, or imagined incivility — as if that shields content from evaluation.

You say you’re “just responding.”

But what you’re doing is engaging in repeated attempts to minimize legitimate scrutiny, frame persistence as “accusatory,” and posture as a neutral party while actively shaping the thread’s atmosphere with passive-aggressive signaling.

Let’s remember:

WP:BEHAVIOR applies to how we create and defend content.

WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTABILITY don’t pause just because the article was created in good faith.

And WP:CONSENSUS is not just about whether editors feel tired — it’s about policy-aligned outcomes.

I don’t fault you for creating the article. I fault the consistent use of surface-level, event-driven sourcing under the veneer of representation — and the refusal to engage when that pattern is critically examined.

So yes, I will stay on topic: the article’s notability, and the broader editorial behavior enabling similar articles to repeatedly slip through cracks. Your “recusal” may work as a rhetorical posture — but policy doesn’t recuse you just because you say “good luck” and bow out with a soft close.

Facts don’t care whether you choose to participate.

The record does. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Go back and read through the above text and you will see that not once have I argued or disagreed with you over policy. What I have said is that you've already made your point multiple times. You appear to be trying to pick fights, not reach a resolution. Furthermore, I have not disagreed with you on whether or not the subject is notable. So this entire conversation is not necessary for the end goal of reaching consensus on what to do with the article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Your attempt to deflect by clinging to the claim that you “never disagreed over policy” is precisely the kind of rhetorical sleight of hand that is the problem. It’s not just about open disagreement — it’s about how one participates, or pretends not to, while subtly shifting the terrain from content to conduct, from substance to tone, and from facts to feelings.

Let’s be clear:

You don’t need to say “I disagree with WP:GNG” to erode its standards. You do it by consistently creating borderline articles based on viral incidents, then distancing yourself when scrutiny arrives — all while trying to control the tone of the conversation and framing any criticism of editorial patterns as “picking fights.”

You say this isn’t about “reaching consensus”?

On the contrary — this is about ensuring that consensus isn’t derailed by surface-level recusal and soft deflections. Repetition isn’t the issue; pattern-recognition is. When the same names, same justifications, and same shallow sourcing return again and again, they require repetition because the problem is repeating itself.

You created the article.

You failed to notify yourself.

You entered the thread under the banner of neutrality.

You responded multiple times, escalating tension and framing detailed critiques as personal attacks — then claimed fatigue to sidestep further engagement.

That isn’t neutral.

That’s performative disengagement wrapped in bureaucratic politeness.

And it actively undermines the AfD process.

This nomination was never just about one article. It’s about patterns that dodge notability thresholds by leaning on thin sourcing, then attempt to gaslight critics into silence under the weight of exhaustion or “civility” when those patterns are called out.

So no — this conversation is necessary.

Because Wikipedia’s editorial integrity depends on calling this out in public, in detail, with diffs, policy, and a record that can’t be handwaved away with “good grief” or a polite exit.

If you don’t want to engage — then don’t.

But don’t act like calling out an entrenched editorial behavior is a sideshow.

This is the main event. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

But that's just it. This nomination is just about one article. That's how AfD works. If you are concerned about my editing, this is not the place to call it in to question. This is the space to determine whether or not the article on Lilly Contino should be deleted. Feel free to file a report on me at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or one of the other noticeboards, if that is what you take issue with. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Let’s be perfectly clear:

What’s truly disruptive here is not policy critique — it’s the coordinated deflection from those who repeatedly present borderline articles, then weaponize civility guidelines the moment those patterns are scrutinized.

You say this isn’t the place to “call into question” someone’s editing? That’s flatly incorrect. AfD is precisely the place to examine how and why articles are being created — especially when multiple, nearly identical biographies are submitted under similar conditions and sourcing failures. See WP:DELREASON and WP:NOTABILITY — context and creation matter. If the same editor continues producing marginal articles rooted in fleeting viral incidents, it’s not “casting aspersions” to point that out. It’s enforcing standards.

The irony here is suffocating:

You create an article.

You don’t notify yourself of its nomination — violating AfD protocol.

You enter the discussion not to !vote, but to continuously post, reactively, to every mention — all while insisting you “have no strong opinion.”

Then, when your editing pattern is critiqued in the exact venue where it is relevant, you cry incivility and redirect the conversation to noticeboards?

That isn’t disengagement — that’s manipulation.

And Taffer:

The idea that repetition weakens an argument is laughable in the face of systemic problems. You counted twenty iterations? That should raise alarms — not about me, but about how often these same issues arise, across articles, across editors, across AfD after AfD.

The issue here isn’t tone. It’s accountability.

Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria are not optional. And when patterns emerge that exploit gray areas of notability and then hide behind etiquette, it becomes necessary to repeat, to reinforce, to resist the erasure of hard policy under a flood of soft pushback.

This is not a battleground.

It’s a defense line — against the quiet erosion of standards dressed up as polite disengagement.

If that offends anyone more than seeing notability diluted over and over again, they’re not defending Wikipedia. They’re defending their comfort. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

This is dangerously close to casting aspersions and is entirely uncivil behavior. I'm saying this as respectfully as I can as the third person you're now bludgeoning out of this discussion(I'm removing this page from my watchlist after I reply): drop the stick, you've reiterated some of your points more than twenty times(I counted) in this discussion, particularly against people who were not arguing against them. You don't need to(and in fact explicitly shouldn't) argue with every single reply made that you perceive as disagreement. It's not only disruptive but weakens how your arguments are received. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 21:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Let’s be perfectly clear:

What’s truly disruptive here is not policy critique — it’s the coordinated deflection from those who repeatedly present borderline articles, then weaponize civility guidelines the moment those patterns are scrutinized.

You say this isn’t the place to “call into question” someone’s editing? That’s flatly incorrect. AfD is precisely the place to examine how and why articles are being created — especially when multiple, nearly identical biographies are submitted under similar conditions and sourcing failures. See WP:DELREASON and WP:NOTABILITY — context and creation matter. If the same editor continues producing marginal articles rooted in fleeting viral incidents, it’s not “casting aspersions” to point that out. It’s enforcing standards.

The irony here is suffocating:

You create an article.

You don’t notify yourself of its nomination — violating AfD protocol.

You enter the discussion not to !vote, but to continuously post, reactively, to every mention — all while insisting you “have no strong opinion.”

Then, when your editing pattern is critiqued in the exact venue where it is relevant, you cry incivility and redirect the conversation to noticeboards?

That isn’t disengagement — that’s manipulation.

And Taffer:

The idea that repetition weakens an argument is laughable in the face of systemic problems. You counted twenty iterations? That should raise alarms — not about me, but about how often these same issues arise, across articles, across editors, across AfD after AfD.

The issue here isn’t tone. It’s accountability.

Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria are not optional. And when patterns emerge that exploit gray areas of notability and then hide behind etiquette, it becomes necessary to repeat, to reinforce, to resist the erasure of hard policy under a flood of soft pushback.

This is not a battleground.

It’s a defense line — against the quiet erosion of standards dressed up as polite disengagement.

If that offends anyone more than seeing notability diluted over and over again, they’re not defending Wikipedia. They’re defending their comfort. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: A reminder that follower counts and social media popularity do not, on their own, establish notability per WP:NUMBERG. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. In this case, while the subject has over 400k followers on TikTok, the sources largely revolve around two incidents and do not reflect the kind of in-depth, career-spanning coverage needed to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Momentoftrue (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I want to be clear that I fully support and respect all genders and sexual orientations—trans, gay, lesbian, straight, and everyone else. My position here isn’t biased against anyone’s identity. Personally, one of my favorite trans media stars is Dylan Mulvaney, who I think has made a strong impact. However, after reviewing the coverage, I believe that Lilly Contino, sadly, does not meet Wikipedia’s notability standards to have a dedicated article at this time. Momentoftrue (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Video games, Sexuality and gender, California, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I am not seeing this pass WP:NPERSON. If events are notable, an article should be made about those specific events rather than necessarily the people involved in them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Whilst a lot of the articles about her are quite opinionated, together they demonstrate broad coverage and meet WP:NPERSON. Similarly, this coverage is over a number of events, meaning the article meets WP:BLP1E. With respect, it appears that Nom is incorrectly applying BLE1E to individual sources instead of to the subject as a whole. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 14:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Rebuttal: This argument completely misrepresents what constitutes notability under WP:NPERSON and misapplies WP:BLP1E in a way that ignores the spirit of both policies.

  Let’s rip this open properly:

  1. “Broad Coverage” Is a Mirage — It's the Same Story, Copy-Pasted

  Multiple articles parroting the same two viral moments (Crown & Crumpet, Cheesecake Factory) isn’t breadth — it’s repetition. Nearly all coverage is just variations of "Internet reacts to viral TikTok." It’s event-based noise, not significant secondary analysis. This is textbook WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS territory.

  2. NPERSON? Absolutely Not.

  WP:NPERSON requires significant (i.e., in-depth), independent, and sustained coverage. There are no long-form profiles. No editorial insights. No coverage of her game dev career. No notable accolades. Just TikTok recaps and callouts. This fails the bar miserably. You could swap in any influencer’s name and the articles wouldn’t change.

  3. BLP1E Was Written For Situations Like This

  Contino’s notability is entirely derived from two misgendering incidents — and the "multiple events" defense fails because those events are nearly identical in nature and covered the same way. This is precisely what WP:BLP1E warns about: temporary notoriety from viral outrage cycles, not lasting, encyclopedic significance. She is known because of the reaction, not for enduring achievements.

  4. This Is a Manufactured Biographical Article

  Let’s not pretend this is organic coverage. It was created during an edit-a-thon tied to a political initiative (as admitted by the article’s creator). That’s not a neutral reason for inclusion — that’s a Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY violation waiting to happen. The project goals are noble, but the sources must still pass GNG and SIGCOV, and this one simply doesn’t.

  5. This Article's Existence Undermines Wikipedia’s Standards

  If we keep this, we send the message that anyone who goes viral twice—regardless of depth, career, or recognition—gets a Wikipedia page. That’s a dangerous precedent, and it floods the project with bios that hinge entirely on fleeting controversy, violating WP:NOT and weakening trust in the platform.

  Bottom Line: DELETE.

  - Not significant coverage.

  - Not broad.

  - Not lasting.

  - Entirely event-driven.

  - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, and absolutely meets WP:BLP1E criteria.

  Wikipedia is not a mirror for TikTok trends. This subject can be mentioned in coverage of the incidents themselves, but does not merit a standalone article. Delete.

  – Momentoftrue (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have strong enough opinions about keeping or deleting, but I would like to gently draw your attention to WP:BLUDGEON. You've made your point, repeatedly dissecting every keep vote isn't helpful. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 16:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Respectfully noted. However, engaging with arguments presented in a deletion discussion is entirely within the bounds of WP:AFDPURPOSE. This is not “bludgeoning,” it’s addressing flawed logic and misapplications of policy. If a “keep” !vote contains reasoning based on a misinterpretation of WP:BLP1E or WP:NPERSON, it should be scrutinized. That’s how consensus is built — through critical analysis, not silence Momentoftrue (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  You should be capable of responding to any new points raised without the WP:WALLOFTEXT mainly restating points that you have already made, several times over, because what you posted above does also seem WP:BLUDGEONy to me too. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  The responses are pretty clearly AI generated, which is frowned on. @Momentoftrue, AI tends to be excessively verbose, consider summarizing its points in your own words instead. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 17:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Respectfully, that’s a reach. Just because something is thorough, well-formatted, and cites policy accurately doesn’t mean it’s AI-generated — it means it’s serious about deletion. The issue shouldn’t be how points are delivered, but whether they’re grounded in policy — and mine are.

  If clarity and consistency are getting mistaken for AI, maybe the bar for deletion arguments needs to be raised — not dismissed.

  Let’s focus on the content, not the style. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  I hear you — but reiterating policy isn’t WP:BLUDGEON when editors continue misapplying it. This isn’t about “restating” for the sake of it — it’s clarifying misuse of notability guidelines that risk setting a precedent for hosting articles built on temporary outrage and media flares, not long-term significance.

  If multiple keep !votes continue to ignore WP:BLP1E by conflating coverage of incidents with coverage of the person, then yes — it deserves correction, every time.

  You say don’t post walls? Cool. Then let’s be real clear:

  She’s known because of the incidents, not in spite of them. That’s BLP1E. This article doesn’t belong.

  Clean. Sharp. Policy-backed. No apologies. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  The point is you've made your case and we all pretty much understand your interpretation of policy. Something important to remember is that people can reasonably disagree with you on questions of policy, and that doesn't necessarily mean they're misapplying it. Nor, if your right, does it mean its helpful to your case to to keep stating your point of view in response to each keep comment. If their arguments are so obviously fallacious and yours so obviously enlightened, the closer will be able to figure that out.

  And because I can't help my self: incidents, not in spite of them. That’s BLP1E No, incidents (emphasis added) would suggest more than one event i.e. not covered by WP:BLP1E. There's no such thing as WP:BLP2E. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Appreciate the reminder, but let’s not act like a firm stance is the same thing as being disruptive. I’m not here to hand-hold every Keep vote when many are restating the same vague rationale or ignoring core notability policy. This isn’t about ego — it’s about consistency in applying WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, which are being stretched to fit a narrative here.

  And to your “can’t help myself” moment: no one said WP:BLP2E exists — that’s your strawman. What was actually pointed out is that coverage across multiple incidents doesn’t automatically sidestep BLP1E when those incidents are minor, viral bursts lacking lasting, independent significance. That’s a textbook misunderstanding of what WP:BLP1E protects against — superficial fame being confused with encyclopedic relevance.

  I’m not here to bludgeon — I’m here to make sure deletion-worthy articles don’t slip through because folks got too comfortable confusing press coverage with policy-based notability. Momentoftrue (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  coverage across multiple incidents doesn’t automatically sidestep BLP1E If they are covered for more than one event, as far as I can see based on what is written at WP:BLP1E, then they definitionally do pass WP:BLP1E. Of course, passing BLP1E says absolutely nothing about passing GNG/NOPAGE but it's actually not BLP1E primary job to to protect against [...] superficial fame being confused with encyclopedic relevance. Pehaps you where thinking of WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  You’re treating multiple incidents as an automatic override of WP:BLP1E, but that’s not what BLP1E says — nor how it’s historically applied. BLP1E is fundamentally about protecting living subjects from being reduced to a series of isolated or tabloid-level events that do not, individually or collectively, constitute lasting encyclopedic notability. The bar isn’t just more than one event — it’s about the depth, independence, and enduring relevance of those events.

  We don’t carve out encyclopedia pages just because a subject had two viral moments. That’s not notability — that’s noise. And that’s exactly what BLP1E safeguards against.

  Even if you technically satisfy the “more than one incident” phrasing, if those incidents are interconnected, fleeting, or sensationalist by nature, then you’re still within the spirit of what BLP1E aims to exclude. That’s why this clause exists: to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a digital scrapbook of controversies.

  And yes, while WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP support the same principle, BLP1E goes further — it’s not just about editorial discretion; it’s a living person safeguard. We’re talking about reputation protection, not just notability enforcement.

  So to clarify:

  BLP1E does not get invalidated simply because two events happened — not when those events are closely tied in theme, source, or moment (i.e., coverage collapsing into a single notability arc).

  The presence of multiple news stories doesn’t automatically form a valid GNG case if they stem from echo chambers of non-independent, event-centric reporting.

  Applying BLP1E is about the spirit of policy, not just a literal count of media incidents.

  Wikipedia is not a viral hall of fame, and not every name trending for a month deserves to be canonized in an encyclopedia. Momentoftrue (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  I see, so when you previously said you were reiterating policy with arguments that were Clean[,] Sharp [and] Policy-backed, while accusing others of continue misapplying it and parroting vague rationale, you weren't referring to the policies as they are actually written but instead the spirit of policy and what you recon it's aims should be. See I was going off what these PaGs actually said, my mistake. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for raising this point. Wikipedia policy interpretation involves reading the literal text of guidelines and also considering the broader intent and context in which they are applied. Policy pages often give concise criteria, but explanations, examples, and precedents clarify how those criteria work in practice.

  For instance, BLP1E warns against standalone biographies based on a few events without deeper coverage. It mentions more than one event, but it must be understood in context: the events need to reflect lasting, independent significance. Treating any count above one as sufficient ignores explanatory guidance and how BLP1E has been applied in deletion discussions.

  Literal reading of policy requires awareness of examples and precedents. In practice, multiple brief news items covering essentially the same controversy do not amount to the substantial coverage envisioned by GNG or BLP1E. Saying that coverage across multiple incidents does not automatically sidestep BLP1E reflects established application, not a subjective override.

  The key issue is distinguishing between a literal count of events and substantive coverage. If multiple incidents are interconnected, fleeting, or sensationalist, they do not collectively support lasting notability. This interpretation aligns with the policy’s intent to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a scrapbook of controversies rather than an encyclopedia of enduring significance.

  Referring to the purpose of policy helps avoid misapplication. Every guideline aims to ensure Wikipedia covers subjects of lasting interest, not ephemeral trends. Understanding that purpose is standard practice: policy interpretation relies on literal text, linked guidance, community consensus, and documented rationale.

  AfD discussions exist precisely for detailed scrutiny. Addressing misunderstandings of policy is appropriate to clarify for new editors and the closer. It is not WP:BLUDGEON if each reply corrects a misreading or adds nuance. This ensures that GNG, NPERSON, and BLP1E are applied correctly as measures of substantive, independent, and lasting coverage, not merely a count of mentions. Treating any “more than one” mention as sufficient would undermine policy intent. Therefore, it is necessary to address each misinterpretation to maintain proper application of guidelines.

  Momentoftrue (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  One would think it's quite difficult to have a misreading of policy when apparently we don't even need to read what the actual words of a policy says, but instead can imagine would they should be. I happen to think would think it would help your case to refer to the PaGs that do actually say the things your trying to say (such as WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, or in fact the rest of WP:BLP, which is about defending people from gossip).

  I don't intend to respond any further to this thread, as its clear we have fundamentally different understandings of what a policy based discussion is. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  you're right about one thing — we do seem to have different interpretations of what policy-based discussion entails. But for clarity: I’m not advocating we ignore policy wording. I’m saying we apply it *in context*, as intended, not just literally.

  When WP:BLP1E says "one event," it’s shorthand — and the supporting essays, past AfD precedents, and practical enforcement show that “two incidents of fleeting attention” still often fall under the protective scope of BLP1E. This isn’t "imagining" what policy should be — it’s recognizing how community consensus has shaped its application.

  Yes, WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and the rest of WP:BLP all matter — and I’ve cited or echoed each of them throughout. But WP:POLICY is not a vending machine. You can’t drop in a citation and expect an automatic Keep. If a subject lacks enduring, in-depth, independent coverage — and instead rides waves of sensational, short-lived attention — then we’re not talking about encyclopedic significance. We’re talking about transient noise.

  Policy without practical interpretation is useless. Wikipedia is built on words *and* consensus. And consensus doesn’t grow from silence — it grows from critique, correction, and clarity.

  If we disagree on that, then yes — we’re speaking different languages. But one of us is still speaking Wikipedia’s. Momentoftrue (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Please consider stating the points of your argument in the nomination itself, instead of waiting for people to reply and dropping your argument directly below theirs. At this point, you have made more than half of the comments on this page, making it hard to read and resulting in points being restated again and again. There's nothing wrong with editing the nomination to update your argument, and it's much more helpful for people joining the discussion later. See also WP:TLDR. Thank you. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 18:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  I appreciate the concern, but let’s not conflate participation with disruption. This is a contentious AfD — not a vote count — and each “Keep” rationale that misrepresents policy warrants a precise, context-aware reply. That’s not WP:BLUDGEON — that’s due diligence. I’m engaging substantively and specifically, not restating or padding. If multiple editors make parallel policy misreadings, it’s entirely valid to address each one in turn.

  As for the nomination: AfD is not static. WP:AFDPURPOSE encourages iterative debate, and policy consensus often sharpens in response to how arguments evolve — not in a vacuum. I’ve expanded on the rationale through replies, just like others have clarified theirs across multiple comments. This isn’t TL;DR — it’s transparency.

  And let’s be honest: if an article’s survival hinges on misapplied BLP1E logic, misunderstood GNG claims, or event-linked echo-chamber sourcing, it deserves thorough scrutiny — not a polished summary followed by silence.

  If clarity is the goal, I’d be happy to consolidate and annotate key points. But I won’t step back from challenging flawed keep rationales when policy is on the line — especially with a living subject. Momentoftrue (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I happen to agree with @PYRiTEmonark.. this has become very difficult to read and instead of making a clear point you have berated other people in the discussion by making the same points over and over again. I am not sure why you consider this discussion contentious.. I don't see any more "contention" than on any other deletion discussion I've been a part of. Please be sure to read through Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Behavior when nominating an article for deletion, which states: The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. Individuals will express strong opinions and may even "vote". To the extent that voting occurs, the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. Please do not "spam" the discussion with the same comment multiple times. Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves. Thanks. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Let’s dispense with the performance of concern and get to the truth beneath the etiquette: this is not about tone, or density, or how many times I’ve replied. This is about editorial discomfort with rigorous, policy-grounded scrutiny — the kind that threatens weak “Keep” rationales built on fleeting virality, notability inflation, and uncritical repetition of GNG fallacies.

If policy were being cited accurately, you wouldn’t be reading so many replies from me — but you are, because time and again, I’ve seen arguments that misstate, flatten, or ignore WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NPERSON. That’s not a coincidence. That’s a pattern, and if anyone’s tired of seeing it called out, they should be far more tired of seeing it happen.

You quote Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and accuse me of violating its norms. Read deeper:

“Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves.”

That’s exactly what I’ve done — with policy diffs, with case law precedent, with sourcing analysis. I haven’t copy-pasted one comment twenty times. I’ve offered individualized critiques to individual misreadings — and that distinction is everything. Responding to multiple editors is not equivalent to repeating myself.

You say this AfD isn’t “contentious.” No offense, but I’m not interested in how it feels — I’m looking at what’s on the page:

Editors accusing others of political motives.

Subjectivity presented as sourcing analysis.

Claims of neutrality while defending article creation patterns with no regard for long-term significance.

Dog-piling the one person applying BLP1E with surgical clarity.

That’s contentious. That’s politicized. That’s why I won’t default to quietude just to make the page easier to skim.

And let’s talk about “spamming.”

A 500-word wall of vague sentiment is spam.

A thread of 20 replies that each dissect a unique policy error? That’s editorial service.

If clarity is desired, then let’s reframe the situation properly:

I will always respect good-faith disagreement grounded in policy.

I will never stand down when notability criteria are repeatedly diluted through event-driven sourcing and apathy toward living subjects.

And I will not be silenced through weaponized civility, especially by those who invoke “guidelines” only when their position gets challenged too effectively.

You want a cleaner discussion? Then apply policy accurately the first time.

Because until that happens, I will continue speaking — clearly, repeatedly, and unapologetically: Momentoftrue (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Saying "I'm right and your all wrong" over and over, louder and louder is unlikely to win you anybody to your point of view and is a waste of digital ink frankly. While its very nice that you feel so metaphysically WP:CORRECT in your idea, you are actively failing to communicate them to others, which is the point of this discussion. Multiple people have told you your bludgeoning, and failing to Assume good faith and yet your just failing to WP:LISTEN to anybody (even to the tamest criticism). At some point you have to WP:DROPTHESTICK Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Let’s dead this real quick — if holding people accountable to policy feels like “saying I’m right and you’re all wrong,” then maybe that’s because the policy is right… and y’all are just mad it doesn’t fold to groupthink.

This isn’t me shouting louder. This is me refusing to sugarcoat how badly notability is being bent just to keep an article that wouldn’t survive two seconds outside of an echo chamber.

You call it “bludgeoning”? Nah. I call it precision fire. Every single response I dropped was targeted, relevant, and anchored in policy. I’m not here to coddle misinterpretations or vibe with “consensus” built on shaky logic and feelings. This ain’t a support group — it’s Wikipedia, and what’s at stake is a BLP about a living person, not your comfort.

“You’re not listening.”

Bruh, I read every line and countered with receipts. Just because you don’t like the reply doesn’t mean I didn’t listen — it means I didn’t bend.

“You’re just repeating yourself.”

You’re right. Because some folks keep repeating bad takes, so I’ll keep countering them with the same unshakable facts. We don’t let errors slide just because someone’s tired. You don’t get to shout “drop the stick” when I’m still seeing people picking it up and swinging it wrong.

You want “civil”? Be civil with policy. Respect the process enough to argue correctly, not softly.

You want me to stop? Then stop misapplying notability guidelines like they’re fanfiction rules. Until then, I’ll keep pulling up. I don’t play nice with policies that protect real people — I play correct.

This ain’t WP:BITE. It’s WP:BITE BACK — when bad arguments try to outlive good policy.

Now save your digital ink. I brought receipts, not feelings. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Your not holding people accountable because this isn't a court of law nor is this the place to raise conduct concerns, that's WP:AN/WP:ANI/etc. And perhaps clicking on WP:LISTEN would show you that I wasn't saying you weren't reading. I don't doubt your reading all of this but you aren't listening to what people are telling you. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You keep tossing out “WP:LISTEN” like it’s a shield, but here’s the thing: WP:LISTEN doesn’t mean submit. It doesn’t mean I have to nod along when consensus gets cozy with contradiction. It means I engage. And I have — line by line, source by source, argument by argument. I didn’t dodge a single point. I ripped them open, cited policy, and showed my work.

And now you’re shifting goalposts — saying this isn’t a courtroom? Right, it’s not. But don’t twist that to mean there’s no accountability. Wikipedia doesn’t run on vibes and “we’re tired now.” It runs on verifiability, due process, and community standards. If those are being misapplied, calling it out is participation — not misconduct.

“You’re not holding people accountable.”

I’m not dragging people. I’m holding up policy like a mirror — if the reflection’s ugly, that’s not on me.

“This isn’t the place to raise conduct concerns.”

You’re damn right — and I didn’t. What I did was respond when folks tried to paint good-faith critique as “bludgeoning,” which is code for: “stop being loud with facts, you’re making us uncomfortable.” That ain’t a conduct concern — that’s a silencing tactic, and I won’t bite my tongue for anyone’s digital comfort.

If policy is being misread, warped, or ignored, I’m pulling up. And no — I won’t do it gently, because the subject at hand is a real, living person whose notability is being papered over with puff, not substance. This ain’t just about an article — it’s about the bar we set for inclusion, and whether we let it slide when it feels socially convenient.

You don’t gotta like my tone. You don’t have to agree with the heat. But you will respect the foundation it stands on: policy, precedent, and protecting the project.

So unless you’re ready to actually dispute the arguments with clarity and citations, this whole “you’re too intense” angle is just noise — and we don’t do noise. We do facts. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes you've already told us how you're the only one that understands policy, can understand logic and the rest of us are just misunderstanding/misreading/misinterpreting PaGs that may or may not actually exist on the policy pages that you link to (or in fact anywhere, they may just be there in spirit). May I recommend some WP:BRIE to pair. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Let’s cut the sarcasm and dress this down to the bones — because I see the play:

When you can’t counter the policy, you go after the person.

“You think you’re the only one who gets it.”

Nah. What I am doing is standing firm in the face of a dozen shaky takes trying to pass as consensus.

But you’re right about one thing:

I do know the difference between policy applied and policy waved around like a glowstick at a rave.

So miss me with the passive jabs — “PaGs that may or may not actually exist”? C’mon. That’s not wit, that’s deflection. You’re not disproving anything — you’re hoping the crowd laughs loud enough to drown out the receipts I brought to the table.

You wanna recommend WP:BRIE?

Cool. Here’s my edit:

BRIE: Be concise — unless you’re trying to untangle a mess of half-baked arguments dressed up as policy, in which case clarity > brevity every time.

Don’t like the length? Don’t misapply policy.

Don’t like the tone? Don’t mock someone doing the work.

Don’t like the heat? Then step out the kitchen, because I didn’t come here to vibe-check feelings — I came to make sure a BLP doesn’t get waved through on smiles and misunderstanding.

“They may just be there in spirit.”

Nah. They’re there in black and white.

WP:GNG. WP:BLP1E. WP:SIGCOV. WP:RS. WP:NEXIST.

Pick one. Or better yet — read one, without the spin.

This isn’t a TED Talk. It’s a deletion discussion.

And if that means making sure each “Keep” vote gets actual scrutiny instead of a group nod? Then yeah — I’ll be “that editor” every time.

So keep tossing jokes if that helps you cope.

But policy doesn’t laugh — and I don’t blink. Momentoftrue (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Keep (might as well get back on topic here), The topic is covered in multiple reliable sources that cover the subject of the article (i.e. WP:NBIO). These include WP:THEHILL, The Advocate, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 391#LGBTQ Nation, WP:CBS, Pocket Gamer. These cover multiple events and seem to pass WP:BLP1E per my reading of the actual policy (not an imagined version only viewable in my head; see above for context). It's week because I do think its close to the edge and lots of it is passing. I actually think (unlike some it seems) it's reasonable to disagree with this reading of the sources. P.S. I'm unlikely to respond to a bludgeoning wall of text under this, so feel free to save it unless you have something new to add. Many thanks, in advance. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Let’s be crystal clear: You don’t get to swing in with a “Weak keep”, cite a bundle of barely-there coverage, then duck behind a polite “I probably won’t respond” and expect your take to go unchecked. Nah. You tossed a match in a dry forest and now it’s time to deal with the blaze.

  You say these sources “cover multiple events”? False. They echo the same viral incident and do it through a limited lens. This isn’t WP:NBIO — it’s WP:1EVENT in disguise, trying to wear a press badge like armor.

  The Hill? Syndicated reprint with no original reporting.

  The Advocate? Advocacy journalism with a narrow frame and minimal depth.

  Pocket Gamer? That’s niche industry commentary, not biographical substance.

  CBS? Local affiliate regurgitating the same incident like the rest.

  We not cherry-picking logos here. Notability isn’t a sticker collection. You need depth, independent insight, and substantial coverage — not a stack of reactive headlines off one event thread. Per WP:GNG, passing coverage must build a narrative beyond a single flashpoint. This ain’t that.

  Now let’s talk BLP1E: This person is only in the news because of one isolated controversy. Not a career, not a body of work, not sustained relevance — just an algorithmic moment. And if we’re really upholding Wikipedia’s values, we don’t preserve pages built on the backs of virality alone, especially when it risks long-term harm to a living subject without lasting notability.

  “Might as well get back on topic.”

  Then let’s stay on topic, and the topic is not who feels warm fuzzies from visibility, it’s whether this article meets the threshold for inclusion. It doesn’t.

  And finally — if you don’t want “a wall of text,” maybe don’t build a wall of shallow logic and expect people not to knock it down. This ain’t bludgeoning — it’s surgical teardown of a weak argument hiding behind fake neutrality.

  Don’t confuse verbosity with rigor. I brought both. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Let’s be crystal clear: You don’t get to swing in with a “Weak keep”, cite a bundle of barely-there coverage, then duck behind a polite “I probably won’t respond” and expect your take to go unchecked. No actually, I can and I will, thanks. It's not actually up to you how other people WP:!vote and nobody has to run anything past you for approval. This will be closed in ~6 days by an uninvolved closser (who'll have to wade through this mess). I trust them to separate the wheat-discussion from the chaff-bludgeon. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Let me return the favor with equal clarity:

  You can say “I can and I will” all you want — but when that “will” is propped up by flimsy sourcing and a disclaimer that you’re too checked out to defend it, don’t be shocked when someone does check it.

  This ain’t about who’s allowed to WP:!vote — it’s about whether that vote means anything when it leans on misunderstood policy, shallow sourcing, and a “don’t @ me” energy. If you drop a take into a public, policy-driven discussion, you invited scrutiny. And if your sources don’t hold up? Expect someone to say so. Loudly.

  “Nobody has to run anything past you for approval.”

  Cool. Nobody said they did.

  But if you step into an AfD and toss in weak rationale, don’t act brand new when someone holds it under a microscope. That’s not gatekeeping — that’s quality control, and it’s the backbone of this whole project.

  And about that closer?

  Yeah, I trust them too — to cut through the feel-good “keep” takes that crumple under GNG or BLP1E. To see the difference between good-faith diligence and what y’all are calling “bludgeoning” just because I’m not folding.

  So no — this ain’t about me needing your permission.

  It’s about you not getting a pass when your vote comes wrapped in weak policy and a warning label that says “won’t engage further.”

  Because guess what?

  Wikipedia isn’t a safehouse for bad arguments.

  It’s a platform that lives and dies by evidence, policy, and the will to enforce them — no matter how “messy” that gets.

  So go ahead.

  Drop the “weak keep.”

  Mute the thread.

  But don’t confuse silence with strength — I’ll still be here, dissecting every claim, line by line, while the real consensus builds around the truth — not convenience. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Biography (A&E taskforce) has been notified of this ongoing discussion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment some recent sources for Lilly Contino that have not been used in the article but may provide guidance in the deletion discussion include:
  • International Business Times: Quick Facts About Lilly Tino: Real Name, Why She's Controversial, and Why People Want Her Banned from TikTok
  • Distractify: What to Know About the Lilly Tino Controvery on TikTok and What People Are Saying
  • National World: Lilly Tino: Trans influencer comes out in defense of selfies inside women’s restroom at Disney World - after petition grows to remove from TikTok
  • National World: This is what Lilly Tino looked like before her transition amid growing backlash over TikTok content
  • Florida's Voice News: Controversy erupts over transgender influencer’s Disney World women’s bathroom video
  • P-Magazine: Selfies in vrouwentoiletten kunnen trans-influencer flink wat rechtszaken opleveren

For what it's worth, I do not like these sources as many of them are blatantly transphobic in their reporting (regardless of how one feels about Contino and her actions, which are not the focus of this discussion). However, they appear to all be credible sources according to Wikipedia guidelines, so I thought I would add them here. If someone else wants to add them into the article, please feel free to. If they do not appear reliable, then please disregard.

-- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I've added these to the article talk page, though the WP:IBTIMES and WP:DISTRACTIFY links were quickly removed, the rest seem reliable enough from a very cursory glance. I lack the interest in incorporating them into the article myself(nor do I have the stomach to read that transphobia, my god), but perhaps another editor will be able to make use of them. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 17:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Great, thank you for doing that! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The sources being offered in this AfD are not reliable. They’re barely sources at all. Every link cited—International Business Times, Distractify, National World, Florida’s Voice, P-Magazine—they’re not independent, in-depth journalistic outlets. They are shallow content farms, tabloids, or politically biased blogs, trafficking in ragebait and recycling the same surface-level controversy. There is no meaningful original reporting, no sustained coverage of a career, no exploration of significance, and no biographical depth. These are not WP:RS-compliant sources. They are digital mirrors reflecting the same viral moment. That’s it.

Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG) is crystal clear: significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Not a few throwaway articles echoing Twitter drama. Not reactionary posts exploiting culture war tension. Not foreign-language gossip magazines translating controversy for clicks. Real notability is proven with depth, substance, and multiplicity. This has none of that. What’s being presented is a hollow loop of exposure—not evidence of lasting importance.

This article exists because of a single viral backlash tied to a one-time incident. That is textbook WP:BLP1E territory. Wikipedia does not exist to document every person who went viral once and caused outrage. That’s not biography. That’s spectacle. Encyclopedias do not serve outrage cycles. They record lasting relevance. There is no long-term significance here, no follow-up trajectory, no transformation of public conversation that warrants preservation in an encyclopedia. There’s no book, no movement, no platform beyond short-term TikTok fame. Once the algorithms move on, there’s nothing left.

And let’s be absolutely clear: throwing procedural notices like “this was tagged under WikiProject USA” or “Authors” or “A&E Biography” does not prove notability. That’s just process. It’s internal housekeeping. It doesn’t validate the topic. It doesn’t magically elevate a gossip piece into reliable coverage. Stop treating basic template tagging as if it establishes merit. It doesn’t.

What we are looking at is not a person with an encyclopedic footprint—it’s a page built on the back of virality, controversy, and digital rage. A house of cards held together by screenshots and bad headlines. There’s no framework of notability underneath it. There’s no reason for this article to remain. It doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s minimum threshold for existence.

And on top of all this, let’s not ignore what’s really happening. Most of the coverage is hostile, inflammatory, and borderline or overtly transphobic. Wikipedia’s policies on living people (WP:BLP) and neutrality demand exceptional care, not reckless documentation of online mobs. The subject is not notable. But even if she were, the weight and tone of this coverage would still make inclusion dangerous and unethical. Wikipedia is not a vessel for channeling outrage into permanent record. It must be responsible with how it treats real people’s lives. This article is not responsible. It is not ethical. It is not encyclopedic.

This is deletion beyond reasonable doubt. Every standard—GNG, BLP1E, RS, NOTNEWS, NPOV, TOOSOON—is being violated. This is not a close call. It is not a gray area. This page should be gone, fully, cleanly, and without delay. No redirect. No merge. Just delete. Momentoftrue (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, Momentoftrue. It's clear that you have misunderstood what the notices "WikiProject USA”, “Authors”, and “A&E Biography” are for. Especially as you directed this, again, at me, when I have made no argument for keeping this article. I don't care if it gets deleted, but I do care about clear discussion and consensus being reached. These discussion inclusions are not to establish notability nor validity. They are notices showing that this deletion conversation has been added to their topics pages because those topics are relevant to the deletion subject. It's simply to encourage more people to engage in the conversation (whether for or against deletion). Contino is American, hence this discussion being included in the List of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Contino is a video game writer, hence being included in the List of Authors-related deletion discussions. Continio is a content creator/social media personality, hence the notfication to WikiProject Biography A&E Taskforce. None of this is done as a way to try and "prove notability" nor is it done as a way to "validate the topic". As you can see, earlier on this discussion was also included in internet-related deletion discussions and biography-related deletion discussions, as both are also applicable. Hope this helps clear up any confusion you have on how deletion discussions work. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

You keep repeating that these WikiProject tags are “just notifications” as if that somehow matters. The problem isn’t that anyone thinks they prove notability — the problem is they’re being dropped in bulk to pad this AfD with a false sense of legitimacy. It’s distraction, plain and simple. Tagging a bunch of projects does nothing to change the fact that this article has zero significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per WP:GNG.

Contino being American, a writer, or an influencer means absolutely nothing without notable coverage to back it up. This is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E: a one-time controversy endlessly recycled through tabloid sources, not lasting significance. No deep reporting. No career overview. No impact documented by reliable outlets. That’s the actual issue here — not how AfD banners are used.

So instead of doubling down on procedural noise, let’s keep the focus on what matters: this article doesn’t meet the notability bar and needs to be deleted.

Momentoftrue (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

It's clear you don't understand what inclusion in deletion discussions is for. Please re-read what I stated above. I am not arguing notability, nor have I, nor will I. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Then why bring it up at all? If you’re not arguing for notability, stop padding the thread with procedural noise. This isn’t about understanding what inclusion in deletion discussions technically means — it’s about why you’re using it in a way that distracts from the real question: Does this subject meet WP:GNG?

Spoiler: It doesn’t. No significant, independent, in-depth coverage. Just a viral moment regurgitated by tabloids and low-tier blogs. WikiProject notices don’t change that. They don’t strengthen the article. They don’t rebut deletion. So if you’re not using them to argue for keeping, then they’re irrelevant to this discussion. Full stop

Momentoftrue (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I already stated above why deletion discussions are included in sorting lists. You didn't seem to have an issue earlier when User:Wcquidditch added this discussion into the sorting lists for Women, Journalism, Video games, Sexuality and gender, California, and Minnesota.. so why are you having this reaction now with me? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

You’re right that sorting lists are standard practice. But let’s be very clear: inclusion in these lists is meaningless when it comes to establishing notability. It doesn’t matter if this was added to Women, Journalism, Video games, or the Galactic Senate — that has zero bearing on whether the subject meets WP:GNG. These are organizational tools for participation, not arguments for inclusion. No one’s “having a reaction” to you — the reaction is to a pattern of editors propping up a fundamentally hollow article with procedural fluff.

What actually matters — and what continues to be completely absent — is significant, in-depth coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Not gossip sites. Not recycled outrage. Not tabloid blurbs about one viral controversy. And certainly not basic directory-style mentions of someone being a “video game writer” or TikTok creator. There is no serious journalistic engagement with this person’s career, impact, or body of work. Just a one-time firestorm that faded as fast as it came — textbook WP:BLP1E.

This page is not encyclopedic. It is event amplification, plain and simple. No amount of name-dropping project tags will change that. So let’s cut through the procedural noise and get back to the core of AfD: Does this article satisfy the standards of notability and verifiability? It does not. And until someone produces actual WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources, all the sorting lists in the world won’t fix that.

Momentoftrue (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)