Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Cahill: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:57, 1 March 2024

Josh Cahill

[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)

So, this article was made years ago by someone who is blocked for paid editing, and there's been numerous suspected COI incidents over years.

I'm probably one of the most inclusionist editors on this website, and frankly, I cannot see any indicators of notability for this guy at all. Almost all the sources aren't about him, they're about the airline. He seems to just be a provocateur who bullies airlines for clicks. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Internet, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mostly covered in non-RS, or iffy reliable sources. These are about the best I could find [1] and [2]. Daily Dot isn't terribly reliable (mid-level reliability) per our lists. Bangkok Post, I'm unsure... No coverage in anything we'd use as a solid RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: As per prop and per @Oaktree b.

The only sources that come close to RS were the Freie Presse (FP) articles, but those have been killed along with their archives, and it still wouldn't get it close to the notability finish line. More specifically, those seemed to be human-interest stories leaning heavily towards WP:1E.

The sources found by Oaktree b also seem to be in WP:1E territory, in addition to them being of the "random person had bad experience" caliber that seems to be popular by some outlets nowadays and often uses social media as a source.

More formally, I see issues with regard to the following guidelines (keeping in mind WP:V and WP:NEXIST):

- Not meeting WP:BASIC due to lack of multiple reliable secondary sources
- Not meeting any of the points under WP:ANYBIO
- Ditto for WP:AUTHOR
- Ditto for WP:ENT
- Ditto for WP:SIGCOV
- Ditto for WP:NSUSTAINED

And while not a formal guideline, it meets pretty much all of the observations in WP:NYOUTUBER.

I'd even go as far as to recommend OS deletion as a courtesy to the subject, seeing as they've gone through some length to keep their legal name from wikipedia.ConcurrentState (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also noteworthy that the article never has been existed on German language Wikipedia even though they are German. Killarnee (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing a lot of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT in these deletion rationales. We can all have our opinions about Josh's clickbait "journalism" and the confirmed COI editing of the article, but for better or worse, he is quite successful at making headlines and a casual trawl of Google News finds plenty of WP:RS including Bangkok Post [3], South China Morning Post [4], New Indian [5], AsiaOne [6], news.com.au [7], etc. All these articles are examples of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and thus meet WP:GNG, and they cover different incidents, so its not WP:1E either. I also disagree with ConcurrentState's rationale above: the fact that the online copies of reliable sources (Freie Presse) have been removed does not make those sources unreliable, much less have any impact on the subject's notability. Jpatokal (talk) 05:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they refer to him as a "german vlogger" and not by name is more than enough evidence of a complete lack of general notability. Look at the content of the articles in question. That isn't an establishment of notability, that's basic routine coverage of random incidents that happen, posted on the internet. My name shows up in a few articles. I'm not notable though. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the articles I linked are about Josh Cahill, refer to him by name, and pass the WP:GNG test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Jpatokal (talk) 10:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clarify, the "titles" don't refer to him by name, and instead they refer to him as a "german vlogger", before later giving his name, after outlining the controversy with the airline. That's an indicator of a lack of notability. Notable people are recognizable by name. Take any notable youtube/streamer, their names/alias appear in article titles about them, or precluded by their profession. asmongold hikaru

It's frankly WP:ROUTINE coverage of controversy. DarmaniLink (talk) 11:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your title theory is unsupported by the actual guidelines at WP:GNG, and you're also misapplying WP:ROUTINE: if these events were routine, they wouldn't be getting dedicated articles in major newspapers. Jpatokal (talk) 11:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except the coverage is about the controversies, and doesn't establish his notability as a person. For a person already notable, that information might be of encyclopedic interest.

Even should we accept your premise, WP:GNG is just a guideline. It's not a guarantee of notability. If these events were all standalone, we would be questioning whether or not they were notable as single events (and therefore whether or not WP:1E could even apply). As concurrent put it above, it's the "random person had bad experience" cruft that gets thrown out on slow news days. From WP:ROUTINE:
Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable.
DarmaniLink (talk) 12:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Keep. Whether you like him or not but the article seems to be relevant. If you compare his page views to the only other "aviation vlogger" here, Sam Chui, Cahill seems to be way more relevant in search traffic, which means users are interested in the subject. This source seems relevant by Corriere.it. - a rather dedicated interview. However, seeing all the edit wars and the name issue, it's probably better to have it deleted, also in his interest... but saying "He seems to just be a provocateur who bullies airlines for clicks." is not a neutral kinda view and as @Jpatokal already mentioned WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT - just my opinion. — Partisan321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Sock !vote struck. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth mentioning, the page mentioned by the account who made his first edit on this AFD (welcome!), Sam Chui was created by the same editor who did paid editing (User:VirenRaval89) in diff Special:Diff/950683366 (then subsequently edited by an IP with the exact same edit summaries), a few months prior to making this article up for deletion Special:Diff/982826878. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to venture into WP:PA w/r/t the new account (and will address their arguments on their merits soon after), but I'd be remiss not to point out that I'm getting some strong quack deja vus when seeing their misapplication of and emphasis on the neutrality principles of Wikipedia. It's very reminiscent of the talking points about neutrality and bias on the article talk page. Some examples that come to mind are here[8], here[9], here[10] and here[11].

Edit: I see that @Vanamonde93 has closed the SPI in the meantime, would it be bad form to ask them to consider keeping it open until the AfD has concluded? ConcurrentState (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably go on ANI with a link to the SPI. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Keep’’’ One of the most famous Aviation YouTubers. — 92.16.239.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Hi! I see this is your first ever edit, that isn't a policy based argument. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming down on the side of delete. I looked at the links Jpatokal shared and I was in two minds, but I just feel that each of the articles is more about an airline's notable behaviour toward a passenger, not coverage the person as notable. Mgp28 (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 *’’’Keep’’’ One of the most famous Aviation YouTubers. <small>— [[Special:Contributions/92.16.239.89|92.16.239.89]] ([[User talk:92.16.239.89|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added at  18:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC).</small>
 *:Hi! I see this is your first ever edit, that isn't a policy based argument. [[User:DarmaniLink|DarmaniLink]] ([[User talk:DarmaniLink|talk]]) 19:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+*I'm coming down on the side of '''delete'''. I looked at the links Jpatokal shared and I was in two minds, but I just feel that each of the articles is more about an airline's notable behaviour toward a passenger, not coverage the person as ''notable''. [[User:Mgp28|Mgp28]] ([[User talk:Mgp28|talk]]) 17:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)