Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheReportOfTheWeek (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 keep. GNG has been met. (non-admin closure) StrikerforceTalk 15:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheReportOfTheWeek

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

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

Nearly all the supporting refs are his own videos and interviews of him clearly intended to promote his market share. I can see nothing here which is both reliable and independent and which asserts any notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   09:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The sourcing seems to overly focus on self-sourcing, which should be reduced heavily. I'm going to list what I can find. if you say there's no independent sourcing, then you didn't look very hard, as CNN Money's coverage is right there in the Refs.

Source #1 is solid. Source #2, I don't know. Is NYMag a RS? Source 3-6 deal with his death Hoax, where he is not the main focus of the news, but he is reported on. I would say that Reviewbrah is either notable, or just on the cusp of being notable. With the amount of subs he has, he will likely get more news coverage soon. So if this page is deleted, in 6 months or a year he might have enough coverage to pass GNG. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - reference 1 is an interview - does not meet WP:RS, ref 2 is an interview (perhaps the same interview re-hashed?), the next three are all about the criminal deception after the Manchester bombing in which his photo was posted by others(?) and he had to deny that he was there. Do you get notability by not being somewhere and then denying you were there ? This would be the most vacuuous type of notability it would be possible to imagine. If Wikipedia is prepared to stoop that low then it ceases to be an trust-worthy encyclopaedia IMHO.  Velella  Velella Talk   07:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of Interviews not being RS. The word "Interview" does not appear on WP:RS at all, so I'm not sure where you're basing that on. I would also describe it as more of a CNN profile, which includes interview portions. I can imagine a scenario wheresomeone gives interviews for major news networks every day for decades, but you would classify him as not notable since it was interviews. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What the subject says in an interview is a primary source and thus limited in what it should be used for (the subject can't really be a neutral source of information about himself), but they absolutely contribute to notability. The whole idea of notability is about deferring to outside organizations' judgments about who/what is worthy of note. A full-length interview in a mainstream publication shows that. They're also rarely all primary, with introductory text and additional information/context/analysis by the interviewer/editor. That's not to say I'm !voting keep here. I'm not sure. I do agree that the coverage of the bombing-related hoaxes have more to do with that subject than this one, so don't give them much weight, but the CNN Money and NY Magazine sources are decent. Just did a search to find more without much luck save for short things like this on Mashable and this on Daily Dot. There are also sources in other languages that I'm unfamiliar with so don't know how much weight to give them: Tillate, Lenta.ru... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Lenta.ru is a pretty well-read online Russian newspaper, the content there is not an interview, it is indeed talking about him. So source and provenance both okay here. talk to !dave 12:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EditorE: Not correct. Most of the news websites we link to own the copyright to their content. This content is not a violation of copyright, since they own it, and we have not sourced to a page that plagiarised the original content. The video you had linked was a copyright violation, another person had taken that clip from a film, where some other legal entity owns the copyright to the film. If that clip was uploaded by the copyright holders of the film, then there would be no issue. Fair use doesn't come into play here since we are not hosting that content on our servers, but linking to it. See WP:YT and this for a case study. talk to !dave 09:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and this little gem: "interviews of him clearly intended to promote his market share." Some of them are from reliable sources, and how do you know for sure that they're to "promote his market share?" The argument that "nearly all the supporting refs are his own videos" could be valid if there were no third-person sources cited, but the claim about the interviews just being promotional material is just a subjective statement that has no basis in the actual, objective determining of a subject's notability that's based on the amount of verifiable, independent sources a subject has received, and I got some bad news, those include.... interviews. I've seen people on here doing this crap, and it's getting nonsensical. I'm not commenting or attacking any person, I'm just stating something that's negatively affecting how decisions are made in these discussions. editorEهեইдအ😎 20:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that the best sources we have are interviews, and those are problematic. I don't know why WP:RS doesn't mention them - the issue was discussed in the past many times ([2]). While Wikipedia:Interviews is classified as an essay, it represents to my knowledge the best consensus on what interviews are - and just as common sense suggests, they are primary sources, unless there's editorial commentary, which is very sparse in the sources provided. Overall, I don't see the subject as one who has received significant, independent, and reliable coverage: he has received passing mentions, and got to publish his own views about himself and some issues in forms of interviews in some reliable outlets - but that fails the independent requirement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two things: One, got some bad news for you. Source reliability determination isn't based on "common sense." Second, "While Wikipedia:Interviews is classified as an essay." Yes, it's just a stupid essay, that's not a guideline. You can't use that. Refer to what I said about subjectivity in the top comment. Moral of the story: this is an invalid argument you have made. editorEهեইдအ😎 14:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Harizotoh9's first two sources both satisfy WP:GNG, as does the Forbes source cited in the article, at least in my opinion, so I am in disagreement with people who think the GNG is not satisfied. Also, I have looked at the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability, which is not actually official Wikipedia policy but an essay regarding notability for YouTubers but it does give helpful guidance to deletion discussions involving people primarily known for their YouTube videos. According to it, WP:ENT is something that is generally considered to need to be satisfied regarding YouTube personalities, even though nobody has brought up WP:ENT before. I think having 1.1 million subscribers just barely fulfills the 2nd criterion of WP:ENT, “Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following”. Earlier I thought that number was rather low in 2018 and I would have set the bar for “large fan base” at between 2 million and 5 million subscribers, but I looked up at the statistics again after seeing EditorE’s reply, such as the numbers at List of most-subscribed YouTube channels among other things, and decided to move the arbitrary cutoff point for “large fan base” down to be EXACTLY 1 million, so with 1.1 million subscribers, this channel meets that criterion. I suppose maybe we ought to try and come to some kind of consensus regarding what exact number of YouTube subscribers constitutes a “large fan base” per WP:ENT, since no number is specified in that policy. I would suggest standardizing it at exactly 1 million subscribers in the case of YouTube personalities, after considering the reply EditorE made below which led me to reconsider my original vote, which was to Delete on the basis of 1.1 million not being a high enough number. Yetisyny (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC), edited Yetisyny (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I do not think WP:ENT is quite satisfied here." One question.... HOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWW??????????? The people in this discussion are lying to you when they're saying the interview sources are primary sources. editorEهեইдအ😎 14:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Yetisyny: FYI When someone has responded to a talk page comment, best practice is to redact rather than just edit your original. It removes the context for the discussion. See WP:REDACT. For those seeking context, here is the diff of the refactoring. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for letting me know about that best practice, I am sorry about it. If I left in a delete vote and crossed it out with strikethrough and then added a keep vote, I thought that might be confusing for people about where I stand. I was editing my comment because I no longer agreed with what I originally wrote but I see your point about other people wanting to know the context of a discussion if there was a reply. Anyway I think EditorE will be happy about convincing me to change my mind about the exact number of YouTube subscribers needed to satisfy WP:ENT, but I guess people who want to know what happened here and what EditorE was originally responding to, well I THINK I gave an honest account of that in my edited comment. Your diff of the refactoring is also helpful too, though. Good job, by the way, noticing this, you are really on top of things, I will try to take your advice to heart in the future the next time I want to edit a comment, if there have been replies to it. I just looked up how to do strikethrough, seems like I got it figured out and working. Thanks, looks like I am all set to NOT make the same mistake again. Yetisyny (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sure this was a honest mistake, but you misread my comment. I didn't say it meet WP:ENT based on the amount of subscribers. I'm not taking subscriber amount into consideration. I was arguing that you didn't give enough evidence to prove the article failed WP:ENT, given that it's been proven in this debate (see the links on the top of this discussion) the subject has been covered in reliable sources, although some independent-source-interview-=-primary-source conspiracy theorists would disagree *cough* *cough* Piotrus *cough* *cough*. BTW, if whoever closes this nomination determines Delete based on said Piotrus, you deserved to lose your administrator position on the site. editorEهեইдအ😎 15:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. Into the Rift (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles from Forbes, CNN and Lenta.ru aren't just plain interviews (especially the Lenta.ru, and yes, I do understand what's written there without the need to use translation tools), they also point out the fact of subject's notability due to the amount of dedicated followers/viewers this person has or the overall interest he generated (both on his YT channel and on Reddit), as well as other facts (such as his notably unique dressing style), all of which aren't based on what the person told in an interview. So those articles are still WP:RS. The appearance of this person on TV show (Tosh.O) also adds to the notability. All in all I believe this person does meet WP:GNG and the article is worth keeping.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:51, 12 September 2018 (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/TheReportOfTheWeek_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=860570645"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheReportOfTheWeek (2nd nomination), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.