Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BigDawsTv

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. Broad consensus here that the sources, even when in otherwise reliable publications, do not cover the subject in sufficient depth. Statistics such as number of views do not carry any weight in these discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BigDawsTv

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unremarkable YouTube channel; significant RS coverage not found. Sources include tabloid-like coverage and are not suitable for notability. Associated with other nn acts, some of which have been recently deleted at AfD:

Gurley has collaborated with other notable YouTubers such as Andrew Hales, Cody Strong, Juan Gonzalez, Justin Stuart and Andrew Scites from JStuStudios, DJ Sennett, Melissa Flentzeris and The Royal Stampede.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There is some coverage by RS (all be it they tend to be local Arizona sources, but not all). Subscriptions and views significant - 2+ million subscribers (and 300-400 million views) would be more than many TV channels. The article is fairly written - it isn't a obvious advert - perhaps some things should be toned down.Icewhiz (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subscriptions and views do not make notability, coverage in reliable secondary sources does. The coverage is not indepth enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - There are a couple references out there, but the article needs work, and he doesn't seem like that big of a YouTuber for his own article. Hawkeye75 (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While there are many sources in the article that don't indicate passing WP:Notability like the primary ones, those don't negate the sources that do. Like this one from KNXV-TV, this from People (magazine) and this from WJW (TV). --Oakshade (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- these sources are either local or tabloid-like and do not help with encylopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People (magazine), while has some "tabloid"-like features, is still considered a reliable source per WP:RS. The topic's locale is Phoenix. WJW (TV) is in Cleveland. Cleveland is not local to Phoenix. --Oakshade (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The People headline is "Watch: Man Pretends to Be Homeless in Order to Reward Those Who Give" -- this is essentially a repost of the prank & does not provide suitable bio content for the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People is still a reliable source and that article is significant coverage. Sorry you don't like the title. But since you're bringing up the People coverage, additionally to the non-local WJW (TV) coverage, People is a national publication. --Oakshade (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not conform to standards of notability and has a slanted, promotional tone to it.TH1980 (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial and not notable for stand alone article. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Barry, Jason (2015-11-17). "Valley man's viral videos attract millions on YouTube". KTVK. Archived from the original on 2017-05-07. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  The article notes:
2. Kuperinsky, Amy (2014-04-18). "Viral Video: Eating junk food at the gym". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2017-05-07. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  The article notes:
3. Mackie, Drew (2014-09-23). "Watch: Man Pretends to Be Homeless in Order to Reward Those Who Give". People. Archived from the original on 2017-05-07. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  The article notes:
4. Bouwer, Bree (2014-09-09). "YouTube Prankster Pretends Hes Homeless, Gives Back To Givers". Tubefilter. Archived from the original on 2017-05-07. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  The article notes:
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow BigDawsTv to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the above sources are not suitable for establishing notability. One of the sources provided (Tubefiller) cannot even spell the headline correctly: "YouTube Prankster Pretends Hes (sic) Homeless, Gives Back To Givers". Wikipedia does not source its article to tabloid-like coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The contents of the article is inappropriate. We're not a repository of practical jokes. So that rules out refs 16+. Refs 11 to 15 are just name dropping of non-notable youtubers that the article claims are notable. 6 through 9 are from his own channel. So the potential sources are just the first 5 refs., all of them local. The additional ones given above are also just reports of practical jokes. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there is no "repository of practical jokes" existing in this article, nor any article on WP. Simply because reliable sources include the "practical jokes" element in their biographical coverage of this topic, doesn't mean those sources don't count as reliable sources with significant coverage. Several of the sources listed above are not local and are not just "name dropping" or repeating practical jokes. --Oakshade (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Practical jokers can be notable. We have many of bygone eras - e.g. Allen Funt, Naked and Funny, or Echt fett. Just because this frivolous "art" has moved to Youtube (as an industry as a whole) - doesn't mean this can't be notable due to being part of the "Practical Joke Industry". The question should be whether a particular prankster or prank group is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's a prominent YouTube personality, because he appears in other channels including his own. I say keep it, because of vast YouTube broadcasting of his face in other channels. thanks. The Stray Dog Talk Page 14:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete They have made a lot AfD for articles about YouTubers, all other my written articles are gone see examples 1, 2, 3, so why keep this one? also I have no idea where this people came from saying keep, keep only on this one. Mjbmr (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because a topic is a "YouTuber" is not a valid reason to delete or even AfD an article. The reason to keep is based on notability guidelines such as this topic being the subject of significant coverage by multiple independent sources. There are multiple "YouTubers" that are kept and not even a consideration for AfD like Casey Neistat. Even the AfD you created for Paul Robinett was speedy kept for concerns of bad-faith AfD nominations. --Oakshade (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade well I'm agreed to nom and other people that this article is not notable based on coverage and should be deleted. Mjbmr (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We also notice you're the article creator. This is just another in a string of blind rationale AfDs of articles you created, as noted by BigHaz in this AfD, perhaps in some kind of "retaliation" for someone AfDing one of your previously created and then deleted articles. --Oakshade (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BigHaz Oakshade keep your "perhaps", clearly the articles I have created and other articles that I don't have written, me or other people nominated for deletion don't have enough coverage, maybe it's WP:TOOSOON for them to have an article, and having Wikipedia holding these poor written articles encourages other unnotable people try to create their own article with tabloid-like coverage, so this not some sort of "retaliation" what you say and stop trolling and accusing me, I made a huge mistake creating these articles, they gained more subscribers by these and they earned more money while they were unnotable, and some of references on the articles were found on the internet after creating these articles, it's like Wikipedia making these people notable. Mjbmr (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to lash out at me or anyone else. Nobody's "trolling" you at all. What we're doing, at most, is saying that "these articles have been deleted" doesn't really count in a discussion about this particular article. Additionally, just remember that you don't own the articles you write, so saying that "all of your other articles are gone" suggests that you're trying to accomplish something other than creating an encyclopedia. I've had articles I worked on deleted and edited beyond all recognition (usually for the better), and I'm sure Oakshade has too. That's what happens when people collaborate. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to strictly pass the criteria at WP:GNG. Lots of mentions in subpar and local sources is not the same as significant coverage in reliable sources Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with nominator, this fails WP:GNG. Perhaps eventually, when more reliable sources have discussed the subject. Waggie (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Johnpacklambert Hawkeye75 TH1980 Kierzek DGG Dennis Brown Waggie please give your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Roady too, that one related. Mjbmr (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as Stub the Youtube view counts and articles such as [1] suggest he meets notability, but most of the existing article needs to be deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Power~enwiki (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Comment I was canvassed, but was already planning to review every "Youtube celebrity" in an AfD this month. I would support a consensus deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, per other users. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this does not meet WP:GNG. I agree with Dennis Brown and the nominator in particular. Reyk _YO! 07:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's absolutely no "significant coverage". Little blurbs, passing mentions... fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Significant coverage does not involve brief mentions. Perhaps one day when the amount of subscribers to a YouTube channel is a criteria for notability, but not now. Ifnord (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely does not meet minimum notability guidelines. If the best a 'keep' voter can find is a couple of local articles and a misspelled headline from something that looks like a blog, I don't see how this channel rises to any level of notability worthy of inclusion. CrispyGlover (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2017 (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.