Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Jeong/2nd nomination

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was not going to happen at this time (speedy keep; disruptive nomination). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jeong

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

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

As anyone can see in the previous nomination, a very small group of involved "editors" have hurried into silencing a discussion on the topic. Many editors have voiced their opinions, but this select group of editors have pushed their own personal agenda, made sure to get me banned to keep me out of the discussion, and quickly reclosed the discussion breaking again WP:BADNAC after a third party had undone the original closure, explicitly mentioning the involved nature of those intend on silencing discussion. Below I am copying what I posted last time, and please feel free to leave your thoughts such that there will be a large record of opinions.

It's unclear to me how this stub BLP existed before a few days ago since this is how it looked. If you follow the news, then you know why this article has received attention in the past few days. Since then, every agenda-pushing person has come to the talkpage to push their own point of view there. The article was fully locked and since then, interminable discussions have ensued on the talk page, with seeming nothing getting done. This person, according to WP:BLP1E should not have an article, especially since in this particular case, the 1E part is carefully left out of the article. At best, Wikipedia looks like it implies that this is notable enough to deserve an article but completely ignores the main point why anybody has heard of this person. There are already articles where a LP has said far less that this person and Wikipedia implies those people are nutjobs, while here, it pretends this person is an upstanding citizen. Since some people think the article should be frozen for two weeks, it seems like nuking/drafting it, then coming back in two weeks will at least not give the impression that Wikipedia sides with the side that thinks "nothing happened and everything should be swept under the rug".

Also, #cancelwhitepeople. Nergaal (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.