Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bjørn Lisdorf

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

The result was delete. czar 02:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bjørn Lisdorf

[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)

This article has been sitting in the New Pages Feed unreviewed for months. The subject is a Danish Youtuber so unsurprisingly a lot of the references are to self-published sources. He has caused some public controversy and been referred to in public discourse about freedom of speech and media liability. I think the question is whether this coverage is sufficiently about him, rather than about the broader issues his activities raise, to indicate that he is notable. Seeking consensus. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging this for discussion. I'd like to give my process for creating this article and making sure it meets the notability criteria. First, I checked the notability page for people articles:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

This article has multiple published sources (both primary and secondary). Some secondary sources are Weekendavisen, Newsweek, Dotesports, and Dexerto etc, often where Lisdorf is a main subject. For those in which Lisdorf is referenced (i.e., trivial mentions), there are several more sources. These sources are generally seen as reliable and are referenced throughout Wikipedia. These sources are also intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Thus, according to this definition, Bjorn is "presumed notable".

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event"

If the several primary and secondary sources are not substantial enough, then as above, they can be combined to demonstrate notability. Lisdorf is not known for a single event, but as a topic in general, as is clear in his Weekendavisen interview and comments by academics and others. Lisdorf is notable in general, i.e., not for a single event or other exclusionary criteria.

Ok, onto the individual notability criteria. First, it is not so correct to reduce this article to the single topic of "YouTuber", as his case is far different from others. It is more correct to call Bjorn a livestreamer or an influencer. First of all, Lisdorf's VODs are deleted as soon as they are broadcast, due to the controversial nature of his streams. He has also moved platforms multiple times and has multiple accounts on such platforms. Thus, almost all of his videos are removed, as are his views (and those which would add up over time). As such, Lisdorf cannot be represented as a member of an individual field of criteria (such as an entertainer or a creative professional), but as a combination. I would note that Lisdorf passes the following criteria, noted below:

"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards:"

Creative professionals

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique."

Lisdorf meets these criteria, and is explicitly referred to in primary sources.

Entertainers

"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."

Lisdorf certainly meets these criteria, particularly the second and third points. Secondary sources back up the claims that Bjorn has made unique and prolific (not to mention notorious) contributions to the IRL genre of streaming. I see that this genre of streaming is underrepresented on Wikipedia (and doesn't even seem to distinguish it from lifelogging or lifestreaming).

I welcome any comments and feedback. ~ Drummermean (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The sources that are reliable and independent are about other Youtubers and not significantly about Lisdorf. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The attempt to defend the article makes it clear how very weak the claims to notability actually are. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems that the majority of the coverage of this streamer is in relation to his association with Ice Poseidon, rather than being notable in his own right, meaning his claim to notability is a fail of WP:NOTINHERITED. The Weekendavisen, Newsweek, The New Yorker and some of the Dexerto sources are primarily about Ice Posideon, with Bjorn being mentioned. Likewise the coverage of his interview regarding the rape allegations against ONLYUSEmeBLADE is primarily about ONLYUSEmeBLADE, rather than Bjorn.

The controversy section seems to be primarily focused on Danish privacy/photography law and it's implications for livestreams, with Bjorn simply being used as an example, rather than it being about a specific controversy Bjorn has been involved in. He did generate some independent coverage in regard to the racist comments on a train incident, but since it generated no lasting coverage it would be a fail of WP:NOTNEWS.

The remainder of the article consists of some fairly crufty material that doesn't demonstrate notability, e.g. listing him as an photographer sourced to a DeviantArt account, and listing his previous jobs from his LinkedIn account. I'm just not seeing enough in-depth secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfair to say that Lisdorf has only been "mentioned", especially in the Dexerto and Weekendavisen articles. The two Dexerto posts are specifically about Bjorn Lisdorf and the controversy his streams have caused (not just the train incident but also the assault). Ice Poseidon was never mentioned in any of the Dexerto material. Weekendavisen doesn't simply "mention" Bjorn: it has interviews with him and with others about him. The article starts off about Bjorn and there are multiple paragraphs about his lifestory, so it is clearly not just a mention. The specific controversy is not Bjorn being used as an example, but is specifically about him. His videos were specifically reviewed by academics and commented on, with him as the subject. I agree that the personal part of this article does not demonstrate notability, as this is just here for background information. The notability is demonstrated by the sources to do with Bjorn Lisdorf's streaming career and controversy, not his personal life. ~ Drummermean (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drummermean:, I suggest you take another look at WP:RS and how that relates to notability standards. Dexerto for example, has every appearance of a social media aggregating clickbait group blog, not a reliable source. Weekendavisen appears to be a RS but everything said about Lisdorf is said by Lisdorf, so it is not independent. See my second sentence in my !vote above but the obverse is also true: the sources that are significantly about Lisdorf do not appear to be in reliable and independent sources. Notability requires satisfying all three prongs of the sourcing test in at least some number of sources, not two here, another there, two different prongs with that one, etc. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply and explanation. However, I do not understand this part of your comments: "Weekendavisen appears to be a RS but everything said about Lisdorf is said by Lisdorf, so it is not independent." This is not a correct statement. Not everything here that is said about Lisdorf is by Lisdorf. The rundown and commentary is provided by Kasper Baatrup, an independent journalist with no relation to Lisdorf. There are also comments by Sten Schaumburg-Müller about Lisdorf, who also has no relation to Lisdorf. I don't see how this topic is not deemed notable when there are others which have Dexerto as a third of their references and a single reliable source solely about the candidate, whilst the others are just mentions. Please advise, and thanks again. Drummermean (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drummermean:, for the first part, I refer to your own statement above: "Weekendavisen doesn't simply "mention" Bjorn: it has interviews with him and with others about him." In order to be strictly accurate I should have said: "...but just about everything said about Lisdorf..." Regardless, it is not a persuasive source for the three criteria I mentioned. As to the other articles, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and WP:WHATABOUT. We are not evaluating any other hypothetical articles, we are evaluating this one. Maybe those articles just haven't been noticed, maybe the other references in those articles are enough to carry them, maybe they did have an AfD discussion at a time when notability standards were different, maybe something I haven't thought of. None of that matters. We are discussing this article subject and by contemporary standards, this is just not a notable Youtuber. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from a Ganker article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 November 2020 (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.