Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Groth (2nd 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Groth (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)

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. The three sources actually about this article's subject are two small human interest stories from a local news station (KPRC) and another small human interest story from the university he attends (neither of which, I'll add, are independent by nature of being interviews).

WP:BEFORE (which turned up nothing outside of the sources used here) shows that the absolute bottom of the barrel was scraped to find sources even tangentially related to Groth ("tangentially related" would even be a generous description of some of the sources). For example, four of the 11 sources are listicles from ScreenRant (borderline blog spam articles) that, in case of the second one for example, have one single item out of 10 being a screenshot of a meme posted to MandJTV's subreddit (not even made or posted by Groth himself) but zero mention of MandJTV; the only text about MandJTV in the article is the data pulled from the Reddit API which reads "r/MandJTV".

Meanwhile, things like the Business Insider source are a brief, inherently non-independent interview from Groth placed among several other terse interviews with YouTubers within the same article, not to mention the fact that it has nothing to do with Groth himself as a subject and is instead a story about a drop in ad revenue among YouTube creators.

In summary, the sources we have are:

• Two small human-interest stories from local news channel KPRC.
• One small human-interest story from Rice University.
• One ScreenRant listicle about Poketubers that contains a bare-minimum, 107-word description of Groth's channel.
• Three ScreenRant blog spam listicles about memes that have (I cannot emphasize this enough) literally nothing to do with Groth.
• Two Business Insider articles that have a few words from Groth about YouTuber ad revenue among the words of several other YouTubers.
• A short article from Sportskeeda (a source which covers such important topics on its front page as "4 best organic babyface turns from the Triple H era of WWE so far") regurgitating verbatim Groth's opinions on BDSP.

It feels like this article was WP:REFBOMBed, whether intentionally or not, to, respectively, give the subject a facade of notability or to pad out what would otherwise be a four-sentence stub. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting for the record that the prior Michael Groth AfD was about a completely unrelated subject and is of no relevance here, despite its automatic inclusion by the AfD script. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops! Thanks for pointing that out; I hadn't even noticed. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Entertainment, Internet, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I concur with the nom's detailed analysis that the references are poor. The first two references are routine interview-like coverage that does not seem to pass WP:SIGCOV IMO, whereas this is a listicle that comes nowhere near to WP:SIGCOV as well. Next, there are numerous bottom-of-the-barrel listicles from ScreenRant, which is marginally reliable per WP:RSP, the coverage appear to be routine and trivial, in merely a few short paragraphs. Similarly, the Business Insider articles, which is generally reliable for its culture section but marginally reliable otherwise (I'm unsure if media articles are culture ones) cover routine subscriber and revenue details along with a few interview-like quotes, falling into a minor story per WP:GNG that is not WP:SIGCOV. My WP:BEFORE did not find sources that could demonstrate notability, only trivial mentions or non-SIGCOV routine coverage such as 1. Similarly, IMO WP:BASIC and WP:NARTIST are also failed. VickKiang (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I was not aware that interviews were not considered independent. I'll be more careful about sourcing in the future. I agree the page should be deleted since there aren't independent sources. 19jshi (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A unnotable youtuber that has not done a signifigant thing to be on an article.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 07:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete According to WP:GAMESOURCES, screen rant isn't appropriate for demonstrating notability. The other sources also have issues with independence and/or reliability. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per general consensus. I see no notability here. Zekerocks11 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 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.