Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IShowSpeed (3rd 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 keep. I think there is a clear consensus in this discussion to Keep this article. And considering that I started the first AFD on this article 9 months ago, I think we've come full circle. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IShowSpeed

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Over the course of the last 7 months there has been a well defined push to get this article out into the mainspace. It appears it was cleared at AFC today, however I confess I still have reservations about the article. First, for the purpose of recreation, the GNG states that, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; however there remains a question of whether or not there is signification enough coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject for the article to be on here. The article alleges that he has amassed more followers than anyone else in history, but that suggests that the subject fails WP:ONEVENT as being someone who is arguably famous but not necessarily notable. Read in a marco sense and not a micro sense, this article is essentially a massive collection of indiscriminate information on the subject, much of which appears to have no bearing being being important to a limit few who follow the man (take for example his test cheating, its a 10 question test, not the collage admission exam, therefore it is of no significance to the article). Of particular note here though are the repeated attempts made by those unfamiliar with the site to get this article into the main space. Under the circumstances, that could be interpreted as a conflict of interest for the article and its contributors, however the more relevant aspect of this appears - based on those who believe he should have an article here - to be an issue with self-promotion and publicity, which bumps up against WP:NOT, specifically "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". Of particular note is point #3: which concerns "Scandal mongering, promoting things 'heard through the grapevine' or gossiping: when looked at from a macro sense this article appear to do more to promote the subjects notoriety then his fame. In relisting this article, I cite the second sentence of the General Notability Guideline for the term presumed: "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and request that the community judge whether this new version should remain or whether it should once again be deleted and/or salted. Alternatively, this could be considered a candidate for redirection to a relevant list (such as List of most-subscribed YouTube channels) if the community feels that would better represent the article's subject at the current time. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the source table on IShowSpeed's talk page showcasing evidence of his notability per coverage in independent reliable sources. Even if by miracle all the sources are not reliable, IShowSpeed still meets criteria number 2 of WP:SINGER with his song "World Cup" ending up on 4 different national charts. A little digging could've easily avoided this entire nomination, was this AfD really necessary? Célestin Denis (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Célestin Denis: Yes it was. There have been ongoing issues here with people persistently trying to publish the article and consensus at the time from the community being "not yet". On top of that, there are lingering G4 issues here in that there are only so many ways to say something until its been said. To cover the bases, this is being relisted to gain the community's input on the matter. I've made my case, you've made no case per se, and others will weigh in as well. Ideally, this will end either as a clear case of keep or no consensus, but in either of the cases with community support any immediate attempt at CSD G4 based deletion will be avoided and importantly others will see that the current/most recent consensus is to retain the article or that there was no consensus to delete the article. Otherwise, you've going to have trigger happy people who will keep coming after this article until it gets deleted. I've waltzed this waltz before, I know this tune and these steps, so believe me when I say that this is the best course of action for the article at the present time. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G4 deletion would probably not even have been in question considering the heavy support of administrators. By creating an AfD you are preventing the indexation of the IShowSpeed article in search engines for 7 days at perhaps one of the times where he is most sought after. His song is currently peaking on the charts and his name is starting to gain immense traction with the ongoing World Cup. Célestin Denis (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admin support doesn't make the article notable, admins have disagreed with each other before and ultimately we are agents of the contributors and editors charged with ascertaining and implementing consensus and with upholding site policies and guidelines. Keep that in mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article perhaps went through one of the most thorough examinations, countless reviews and a deletion review in the past months. I think it's fair that it is finally ready for main-space. IShowSpeed's entire brand relies on being controversial so it is easy to understand why a large proportion of the coverage would be around this aspect. The question of the significant coverage in reliable sources has already been discussed in the past and the consensus was pretty clear, like I said please refer to the talk page. The WP:ONEEVENT does not apply here and I don't understand how you could possibly think so as the sources do not cite a single particular event. You seem to be making a lot of unsubstantiated claims in your arguments that are not backed by the contents of the article. Not to mention that the question of redirection seems to be completely absurd. Are are suggesting to erase the entirety of the verifiable content forming IShowSpeed's B-Class article into a single mention in a list? Célestin Denis (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing only sources, I'm arguing other points as well. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information, we are not a publication website, and we are not part of the social media circle. You can have excellent sourcing and still fail other measurements for article retention. You've made your point with sources, but haven't taken up the other points per se. Of particular note, despite claiming the subject is notable, you've yet to cast a !vote for keep, which is particularly telling. Either it hasn't occurred to you to do so yet, you've decided to simple refute the charges here in commentary, or you yourself have doubts about the article's inclusion on site. If you have faith that whats been written is worthy then it would be best to officially commit to one side of the discussion. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I do agree that he fails multiple wikipedia notability guildlines, I would argue that he passes WP:ONEVENT since he has been in the press recently for his sucsess with music and social media, he has created songs. I am leaning towards delete due to the notability guildlines like the nominator has states. But since of the information of what @Célestin Denis gave to us, since the article has been through large discussions and reviews, its a crossroad.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does he fail any of the Wikipedia notability guidelines that directly apply to him, especially with the numerous reliable and detailed coverage he has garnered over the past year? As a YouTube personality, he passes WP:WEB because numerous sources exist for him that have described the multitude of videos he has posted over the past year, both with and without controversy. He also meets WP:BASIC through multiple notability-granting sources about him as well, alongside WP:NMUSIC with his current single appearing in several national music charts. Every other notability criteria he supposedly fails doesn't even apply to him anyways - of course he obviously isn't a corporation, a registered athlete or, let's face it, even remotely close to a scholar. Not to mention, it is extremely erroneous to assert that a YouTuber that received coverage for making misogynistic jokes and tirades leading to bans on websites and games, lighting a firework inside his room, being swatted, and popularizing a once-obscure mobile app comes remotely close to WP:BLP1E, or even WP:BLP2E. The only legitimate aspect that could perhaps justify IShowSpeed as non-notable is that he may be a "run of the mill" e-celeb. There is nothing new under the world wide web, and YouTubers with controversies come a dime a dozen. But I don't think even the biggest of YouTubers received this much significant coverage from reliable media outlets in just a short period of time. That's something reserved only for the top of the top of e-celebs, which by and large separates him from average internet creators with moderately sized fanbases AND paltry media coverage.

As for TomStar81's arguments over what Wikipedia is not, I'm going to post a lengthy argument later tonight that proves he does meet WP:GNG and doesn't violate what Wikipedia is not. See response below. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I was sincerely hoping that I wouldn't have to write any more bytes of data about IShowSpeed on Wikipedia anymore, but with this AfD posted less than A DAY after it was accepted via mainspace, it's clear that the sheer mention of IShowSpeed elicits nothing but vitriol no matter what website his presence lingers.

Collapsed for readability

First off, we had the recent Deletion Review where consensus agreed that IShowSpeed proves to meet the notability guidelines. Ironically, TomStar81, you participated in this discussion and advocated for recreation via AfC. In that discussion I created a source table which demonstrated the best sources in accordance with Robert McClenon and SmokeyJoe's suggestions, all of which are present in the article now. I feel like I'm living in Termina having to reiterate this, but simply put, from a quantitative standpoint IShowSpeed EASILY meets WP:GNG through a multitude of reliable sources. Not only this, but I want to apply the concept of intersectionality to IShowSpeed, mainly because he fits multiple criteria. Of course he meets WP:BASIC as a living person. However, seeing as how he's primarily a YouTuber that creates web content, WP:WEB must also be considered - multiple outlets have described the nature of IShowSpeed's content separate from his controversies.

Second, as someone who wrote a counterargument about his notability, I no longer believe most of the points I wrote. While IShowSpeed is controversial, I don't believe his controversies should deter him from obtaining his own article anymore. Using the WP:NOT argument, Wikipedia is not censored - so long as the material is encyclopedic, we should feel free to add such controversial information. And most, if not all, of his controversies are referenced solely from sources Wikipedia considers reliable in accordance with WP:BLP.

Also, you claim that a large portion of the article violates what Wikipedia is not. Judging from your initial post, I assume that the policies you're mostly referring to are WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP.

Your claims of indiscriminateness are in my opinion flawed. Reading the guideline, it asserts that "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources," which is what many of the sources do - they contextualize many of the events he has been embroiled in within the context of internet controversies and other larger themes and ideas. For brevity's sake, I'll focus on two examples: his Valorant ban, and the quiz he took.

In the last few paragraphs of a Kotaku article about the incident, the author used the event as a branching off point to discuss gaming toxicity, misogyny and the moral dilemma regarding how we treat adolescents when they say bigoted messages. This goes far beyond a routine announcement of "hey, X YouTuber did Y thing! Here's how he did it!" It's something that would appear in a scholarly journal about hate speech online, or how online gaming cultivates toxic spaces.
The Yahoo News source discussing the quiz he took, while admittedly a bit trivial, starts off with an adage that discusses how the internet can be used to mislead others. This of course relates to the larger issue of misinformation via social media, which the article partially explores using Speed's stream as an example. In general, both sources don't just merely break the news; they describe their significance as well.

This is a common pattern with a large portion of the sources in that they synthesize the events he's been involved in with background info of him as a person/his content, while using such events to articulate more significant ideas. So not only does this prove reliable sources deem him and his content significant, their analysis of said videos proves it's more than just indiscriminate or trivial gossip or simple routine news coverage. Not to mention, it doesn't qualify as gossip because the sources aren't based on unconfirmed rumors - they're based on actions IShowSpeed actually did and were verified.

As for your point that "Wikipedia is not a means of promotion" and that this article "promotes the subject's notoriety then his fame," I'm pretty sure that's more of a neutral point of view issue rather than promotional issues. While ultras have thwarted the article before, that doesn't mean all other editors want to promote him in any way - whether to tarnish his reputation or garner him more viewers. Honestly, I never heard of him until shortly after the Valorant incident, and saw that so many media outlets have covered it that I thought it would make a fair article. I'm sure that there were good faith editors who also had the same thought, not to mention people who discovered him through news outlets reporting on it. This article doesn't intend on promoting him because reliable sources more or less already have fulfilled that role. We're just printing this knowledge on a page of a never-ending encyclopedia.

Finally, if there's one lesson I've learned these past few months of knowing IShowSpeed, it's to take a step back from my biases and see the bigger picture, especially when it comes to identifying notability. What one person deems important may seem meaningless to another person, and vice versa. But from a Wikipedian standpoint, what matters the most isn't how we feel about a person or idea. What truly matters here is what sources from experts say about said topic. That should be the key to notability, and IShowSpeed has unlocked it in so many ways. Regardless of our feelings towards him, at the end of the day we can't deny that he has had a huge impact in such a small amount of time, and that's something worth documenting in any encyclopedia in the world.

PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Definitely not a WP:TNT case, but it does need some cleanup, e.g. some WP:NPOV issues and WP:CSECTION. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 15:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article has certain notabilities considering a large number of subscribers that he have on Youtube, but a reliable source in the main problem about this page. -- B-MIKE -(Talk) 02:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subscribers doesn’t assert notability. You need reliable sources in order to assert notability as well as verifiability. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering all the news article about him, He do have nobility while there is reliable sources like The Sun B-MIKE -(Talk) 20:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun is a deprecated source per WP:RSP so this is not a good example. However, there are articles in reliable sources such as Kotaku, Dot Esports, Insider and Inven Global which are all considered reliable by the community. Célestin Denis (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well Yes I agree that cheating on a 10 question quiz is not notable, I suggest that the pokemon firework event should be moved to the Controversies chapter. B-MIKE -(Talk) 02:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough coverage here for an article. Ss112 00:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was willing to accept this AfC submission before Ingenuity did so themselves. The article's sources proves it meets WP:GNG, and I disagree with your assessment of WP:ONEEVENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DatGuy (talk • contribs) 12:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the middle: Sure there are reliable sources and some notability but almost half of the references are primary which is concerning for an article on a living person. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please cite some examples of unreliable and primary sources being used in the article? The presence of such sources should also not be enough for deletion if there is presence of enough reliable non-primary sources asserting notability. Wikipedia is a not finished product and the article should instead be improved and not completed erased on such a basis. Célestin Denis (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I admit, the unreliable sources bit was sort of an exaggeration as there was only like 2 or 3 unreliable sources but still, almost half of the references are primary sources. Besides my vote probably won't matter in the end anyways. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 22:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see like... 3 primary sources. One for his YouTube views, one for his singles (which can be removed, not even needed), and one for his birthday. Where are you getting "almost half"? – Pbrks ^(t • c) 17:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the reliable sources found above, The notability of the subject in question, and the contents of the article. I do not see any reason to destroy this article. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — There is enough non-trivial mentions in reliable sources that sufficiently cover iShowSpeed to suffice an article. Commenting on content, the article needs some cleanup. Harobouri ^{T • C (he/him)} 00:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I didn't know who this guy was; I only knew he had 13.8 million subscribers. Came to Wikipedia to find out more about him. Why in the world would this helpful article be deleted? Marc Yu 04:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcyu (talk • contribs)
Keep Llacb47 (talk) 05:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alexysun (talk) 16:33, 5 December 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.