Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevjumba

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. article could be recreated later with some good sources (not YouTube) Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevjumba[edit]

Oy gevalt...ever since I began regularly editing wikipedia/perusing the deletion log I have been hoping, hoping, hoping I wouldn't have to do this, but still, it's my obligation to nominate this page for deletion. Kevjumba is indeed Youtube's most subscribed comedian, but otherwise he fails the notability criteria. Despite having a very large, strong fanbase, he has literally no coverage outside of YouTube, and is far from being as notable as other YouTubers who have Wikipedia articles. Calgary 04:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is verifiably the single, #1 most subscribed comedian, and by a large margin, on the most popular video streaming website in the world. That alone is sufficient to meet the notability criteria. —Lowellian (reply) 05:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I fail to see how that meets the notability criteria. Take note that he has very, very little coverage by any sort of independent source or media outlet. Also, being #1 subscribed in a particular category is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, take note that the #1 subscribed YouTubers for the Gurus and Musicians categories do not have their own articles. Also, take note that he has only recently become #1 most subscribed, and that no other previous holders or contenders for that title have Wikipedia pages (with the exception of drewtoothpaste, but he is not noted because of his status on YouTube. Finally, if YouTube notability is criteria for an article, take note that he is only the 16th most subscribed YouTuber of all time, and that of the other 15, only a handfull have Wikipedia articles, and all of them are notable outside of YouTube. Calgary 05:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response WP:OTHERSTUFF works both ways, the fact that others don't have articles is no reason to delete this one Guycalledryan 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response As admins can see if they view the page history, the #1 most subscribed musician, Miaarose / Mia Rose, was created, with many different users editing the articles, and speedied — improperly, I think; it should have been taken to AFD, and I have restored the article. The #2 most subscribed musician, Esmee Denters, also has an article. —Lowellian (reply) 05:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Oh, I just realized that Mia Rose was AFD'd once, but under a different spelling (which was why I didn't notice at first), "Mia Rosa" (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mia_Rosa) and mostly for copyvio. The current Mia Rose article, however, does not have that problem. —Lowellian (reply) 05:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Compare to another YouTube video blogger, Emmalina. Now, "Emmalina", unlike "Kevjumba", is also a common personal name in addition to being the handle of a specific YouTube blogger. And yet, despite the additional hits for "Emmalina" that come from it being a personal name, Google currently gives 89,400 hits for "Kevjumba", more than the 85,000 hits for "Emmalina", suggesting that Kevjumba has considerable web presence that extends beyond YouTube. —Lowellian (reply) 05:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'd say something about how we shouldn't make judgements simply by comparison, but I'm the one who opened the door to that. All I'm going to say is that Emmalina has considerable web presence and is the subject of numerous reliable second-hand sources, whereas Kevjumba has slightly more web presence, and is the subject of no reliable second hand sources. Also, I'm not sure how easily a "web presence" translates into a fan base. Calgary 05:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take note that a google search for Daxflame [1] returns 201,000 results (and that's not a very common personal name either), yet the DaxFlame article was recently deleted, so there's precedent. Calgary 05:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability should not be based on youtube views or number of bookmarks there. If this person was notable, then there'd be "significant coverage from independent media" Corpx 06:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and attempting to locate other sources via google. He's not notable outside of youtube, so no verifiable secondary sources. spazure 06:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At 16th on the YouTube Most Subscribed of All-Time list, the dude has more subscribers than NBC. Could a claim be made that he fulfills WP:BIO's The person has demonstrable wide name recognition? While I agree he's probably not notable according to current Wikipedia policy, YouTube shouldn't be treated like any other content hosting website. Ichormosquito 07:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Please give a backing argument to your statement about YouTube being treated like any other website. Exceptions to the policy can happen, but not just because you want it to, we need a reason. spazure 07:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response According to Alexa, it's the fourth most visited website, making it the most visited website that's not a web portal. Its hits, its name recognition, its amount of coverage in the mainstream media dwarfs that of things like Newgrounds or YTMND. Largely because of it, Time Magazine pulled its Person of the Year, mirror on the cover stunt. It brings up about as many Google News results for this month as Jesus. And major media companies take it very, very seriously. Ichormosquito 08:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response A reference for the phenomenon of YouTube celebrity in general: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/technology/26ecom.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=9670fbf567afd78d&ex=1330232400 Ichormosquito 09:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind you that the actual National Broadcasting Company has far more viewership, and that their television programing has a much larger audiencethan their YouTube channel. Calgary 08:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Well, yeah. I wasn't arguing he was more notable than NBC. That more people took the initiative to subscribe to his channel than they did to NBC's is not insignificant. And his subscription level of 40,000 is more than the publishing rates of most comic books, all of which get a free pass at an article. I think he might fulfill WP:BIO's Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; but the lack of outside sources keeps me from voting. Ichormosquito 08:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources attesting to notability seem to exist. If being "most subscribed" is notability, then having the most friends on Facebook would be too. --Dhartung | Talk 08:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response It's not a perfect analogy: people subscribe to him in order to periodically view his artistic output. He's an author of copyrighted works and an entertainer; his subscribers can be characterized as a fanbase. CNET considers a YouTuber's subscription rate his regular viewership. [2] I see where you're coming from, though. Ichormosquito 08:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Still, unless we're using this information to compare a YouTube account with another YouTube account, subscription isn't a very accurate way to measure these things is it? For example, there are people who subscribe to other peoples' channels simply to promote themselves, and the like. Still, a more important question is that of how large a fanbase is required to assert notability, or even cult status. Kevin has around 40,000 subscribers, which is around the same size as a small town in upstate New York. Now, compare that to any other cult figure who has a wikipedia article. Such people, even if they're not in the mainstream, have a much larger fan base, comparable at least to the population of Ottawa. So can a person with a moderately large fanbase on YouTube, and no documented fanbase outside of YouTube be deemed a cult figure?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgary (talk • contribs) 04:35, 13 July 2007

Response 40,000 is the count of dedicated fans who have both registered an account with YouTube and are subscribed to Kevjumba. The vast majority of YouTube users do not actually registered accounts, and besides them, there are probably thousands more casual fans who have accounts and who have seen his videos without subscribing to them. Also see my more recent comment on web presence above. —Lowellian (reply) 05:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A publication with a circulation of 40,000 is notable. Kevjumba's youtube channel is a publication. I shouldn't even have to be making this argument; it's silly to delete such an obviously notable figure. Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist in the service of Wikipedia, not the other way around. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 09:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response A publication with circulation of 40,000 is not inherently notable. If so, why isn't there an article for the Queens Chronicle? It's a newspaper of Queens, New York and has readership well over 40,000, but it's still not a notable publication. Or, more to the point, why doesn't every YouTuber with more subscribers than Kevjumba have an article? Calgary 09:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response If my count is correct, 11 of the 15 YouTubers who have more subscriptions than kevjumba have articles. One is CBS; and, of the four without articles, one has his bio merged with another article, and at least one could get an article that would be relatively deletion proof. And I don't know why the Queens Chronicle doesn't have an article; but readership is different than subscription rate. I realize the newspaper/YouTube channel analogy only goes so far; but if we're talking about something on planet YouTube analogous to readership, kevjumba's is at least double 40,000. Each of his 21 videos has 100,000-300,000 views. My stance is tenuous, I admit; but YouTube is so significant and its viewership so massive I wouldn't mind Wikipedia's guidelines' setting an arbitrary benchmark to gauge notability. I think all the top twenty most subscribed YouTubers should at least have a stub. Ichormosquito 10:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response See, what you seem to be forgetting is that virtually all of those 11 YouTubers have recognition and notability outside of YouTube (with the possible exception of Smosh, but they're the #1 most subscribed of all time, so I could uncerstand making an exception). Most of them currently have projects outside of YouTube that support a claim to notability, and virtually al of them have recieved significant coverage from multiple reliable third-party sources. To the contrary, kevjumba has recieved no media attention whatsoever. And by the way, CBS doesn't count, as most of it'snotability comes from outside of YouTube. Calgary 12:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I understand and sympathize with your argument. I'm just suggesting we take a new approach at gauging YouTube notability, as there really isn't a site like YouTube, and it might require special guidelines. Ichormosquito 18:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at its heart notability is subjective to the audience to which the person is admired by, and if this is within youtube then so be it. The fact that this guy is subscribed to by 40,000 people, and even if he hasn't been recognised by an external media (itself biased to reporting only matters of interest to its viewers) noone can deny that his videos are popular, and if they are popular to such a large audience they are notable even if it is only to his 40,000 subscribers 144.137.105.243 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC) - actually me, didn't realise I wasn't logged in Guycalledryan 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there any coverage anywhere that counts as a reliable source (per WP:RS)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambc (talk • contribs) 07:51, 13 July 2007

Response I don't think so, no. Actors or actresses with significant roles in TV shows get free passes at articles, though. And I can guarantee you that if he were documented in a reliable source, that source would write about him as if he were already notable. News publications tend to have an appreciation for YouTube's significance and wide audience. Ichormosquito 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE makes no mentions to google hits or youtube hits. This is basically a video blog of some person. If the blog was notable enough, then it would've received "significant coverage" from independent sources. I dont think youtube views should replace "significant coverage". Corpx 19:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; without reliable sources, we can't verify anything here. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I don't understand your point. There is not a single statement in that article which cannot be verified, and if there were any statements that could not be verified, then they would be removed, just like for any other Wikipedia article. —Lowellian (reply) 04:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response The issue here isn't factual accuracy, it's the issue of secondary sources used to establish notability, or in this case, the lack thereof. As he's admittedly an "internet phenomenon", if there were indeed reliable secondary sources, we would be able to find them via google -- and we have not. Spazure 04:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe youtube et al warrant new guidelines, maybe they don't, but we have to work with the policy and guidelines that we have or it would just get silly. SamBC 20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Fair enough. I think it's a question worth asking, though. Ichormosquito 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Notability guidelines may be subject to exception, should we deem that such an exception is within reason, and in the best interest of Wikipedia. Extravagance 22:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Notable enough for a small stub, per the reason given by Lowellian. Ichormosquito 00:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm starting to feel uneasy about my "weak keep" vote. kevjumba's "Comedian" designation, and thus his number #1 spot on the "Comedian" list, are arbitrary: there are comedians on YouTube with more subscribers than he has. "Comedian" is just a label he chose at the outset of registering for an account. His strongest claim to notability is his being among the top twenty most subscribed YouTubers, most of which the news media find notable. Does this attention mean there is something inherently notable about all the top 20 or so most subscribed YouTubers? Possibly; but the closing admin, if he or she decides there isn't a consensus to delete, should probably encourage that editors feel free to reassess his notability at a later date. Ichormosquito 18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Whether someone is a "comedian" is subjective. Kevjumba is the highest ranking "dedicated" comedian, the highest ranking YouTube content provider who identifies himself as primarily such. ALL YouTube content providers are required to categorize themself in one of seven categories — really, more like only four since "Partners", "Sponsors", and "YouChoose 08" are very special cases that do not apply to general content providers. Every single one of the four major categories has many, many thousands of content providers and is highly, highly competitive. Kevjumba is the highest ranking individual for one of the only four ("Comedians", "Directors", "Gurus", "Musicians") major categories in YouTube. That's a major and notable achievement. —Lowellian (reply) 23:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Just a small comment, you're not required to belong to a category to upload content. Calgary 23:30, 16 July 2007 (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.