Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IShowSpeed (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is no such thing as merge and delete - such a move runs into issues with our license. However there was a clear consensus that references should not be lost so those have been copied over to the draft. The mainspace page will also be protected against recreation. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IShowSpeed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

IShowSpeed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

IShowSpeed

This article is on a YouTube personality of questionable notability who obviously has a fan club in Wikipedia, but having a fan club does not establish notability. The article as written does not speak for itself and does not establish notability. A review of the sources shows that they are of uncertain reliability. The subject is using digital media and social media effectively for promotion, but that does not mean that Wikipedia should facilitate the promotion. There does not appear to be significant independent coverage.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Dexerto Reads like a trade rag for streaming Yes Yes ? No
2 Iheart.com A blurb for a podcast No No ? No
3 Newsbreak.com Reads like another blurb No No Yes? No
4 Insider.com Reads like a news story, but is quoting from source 1 Yes Yes Sometimes No
5 Dexerto Reads like a news feed story Yes Yes ? No


An article on the subject has already been taken to AFD once and was draftified, and the comment was made that it should go through AFC. Instead this article was created again in article space. This version and the previous version are not the same, but there is still an attempt to bypass review and to push an article that is not ready for article space. This is the second AFD.

Extended-Confirmed Protection may be needed to channel these submissions through AFC review. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gameforall I didn't want to have to comment on this discussion again but after seeing this response I have to give my final two cents. First off, the mainspace version shouldn't have been recreated in the first place. The previous AfD already established that it should be draftified due to a lack of notability-granting sources, which was honestly the best-case scenario for e-celebs whose notability is challenged on Wikipedia. The idea was to encourage users to continue editing the draft while waiting a little while for sources that cover the individual's rise to fame in-depth beyond isolated incidents. As aforementioned, IShowSpeed is a clear example of recentism because of how quickly he rose to popularity faster than most news outlets could take note of him. However, popularity ≠ notability and isn't automatically grounds for keeping an article, regardless of how unusually fast someone garnered fame.
Second of all, the draft was declined because of most of the coverage focusing solely on the incident... which is exactly the same problem this mainspace version has. The new sources added to the article are of dubious reliability like Dexerto and The Focus, and besides the Lifehacker source which discusses some meme he was involved in, there isn't much to write a balanced article about him nor is there anything new this article offered that couldn't have been merged into the draft. The Inven Global source from December covered his Twitch ban which at best may be enough to surpass WP:BLP1E, but at worst may be another BLP violation entirely. I suggest merging the new RS from the article into the draft and reworking it in a more neutral view, which may be hard to do seeing as how these events are quite controversial anyways.
And finally, I cannot emphasize this enough. Please do not recreate articles which have already been discussed thoroughly in an AfD without offering a new and strong case as to its notability. You should have worked on improving the pre-existing draft and actively seeking out usable sources rather than deliberately rushing to get this article out into mainspace. There is no deadline on Wikipedia anyways, so there was no reason to do anything but take your time to work on the draft. If you and other editors work as hard as you can to finally get the draft accepted in the future, then that's great! If the draft never gets accepted, then perhaps it wasn't meant to be.
Also to clarify, I was the IP who voted Merge outside of my account. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A user, probably an ultra, came on to the IRC Help channel to try and canvas !votes - RichT|C|E-Mail 17:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether this article is deleted or merged, I think this page title needs extended-confirmed protection or a new version of this article will just appear before the end of the month and we'll be back here for AfD 3. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the version in draft space, then salt the mainspace title until such time as the draft is accepted. Notability is a close question on this one - is he notable as a content creator, or just as a jerk who made some derogatory comments about women? Only time (to produce further sources) will tell. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and salt per ONUnicorn. I'll add that the current article's quality is problematic enough in tone and unsourced statements that it might need some WP:TNT even if enough sources are collected to demonstrate notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Six sources, all of which appear unreliable and only cover him for minor occurrences in which he was engaged.--The Tips of Apmh 01:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient and low-quality sourcing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @OhNoitsJamie and The Tips of Apmh: As aforementioned, Kotaku, Dot Esports, NME, Inven Global and Insider are all considered reliable sources per community consensus, so the quality of sourcing isn't exactly the point. This is more along the lines of whether this is a case of BLP1E or not. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was just introduced very, very recently. I recommend we give it time to be developed further before considering any deletion. Amerail (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amerail: We had just draftified this at AfD weeks ago. It should be developed in draftspace instead of the article being recreated, going against the 1st AfD entirely. SK2242 (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IShowSpeed_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1115326340"