Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AzzyLand

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 no consensus‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AzzyLand

[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)

It doesn't seem like this Youtuber meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT. The best I can find are non-RSees, the BI article listing creators with high view counts, and recent articles about SSSniperwolf's ongoing disputes with different content creators including Azzyland. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, this article should be kept. AzzyLand is one of the most viewed YouTubers in the world. I cannot understand how somebody can get over 1000000000 views in a year and not be notable enough for Wikipedia. I was very surprised when I found out that she was not on Wikipedia already. Please keep this article. Madison Elizabeth Michelle (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because you don't understand notability, which is nothing whatsoever to do with views on YouTube. Notability is not fame nor importance. You also need to learn about reliable sources. An autobiography on YouTube, another autobiography elsewhere, and a wiki are not the way to source biographical articles, or indeed any articles. Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

A 7-minute video interview published by Forbes hosted by Moira Forbes
A 3-minute video interview with Cosmopolitan Middle East
The Business Insider piece already cited in the Wikipedia article, which covers the subject briefly but more than a passing mention, so probably counts as "half of a source"
An article by GirlTalkHQ, a magazine I haven't heard of but might be reliable

Left guide (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Found name mentions, interviews, promo, nothing meeting SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs requires strong sourcing. Sources in the article are:

Comments	Source
Official website, fails WP:IS	1. https://www.azzyland.com
Social media channel	2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzeB_0FNcPIyUSjL_TL5lEw
Promo item in list of social media channel, database style info.	3. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-most-viewed-creators-pewdiepie-david-dobrik-mrbeast-azzyland-lazarbeam-2019-12

BLPs require strong soucing. Ping me if WP:IS WP:RS with NPOV SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth is found. // Timothy :: talk 19:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per left guide's sourcing. 2 of those are RS and have significant coverage. Meets the "ugh, fine, I guess" threshold. There's also some additional coverage of recent plagiarism accusations involving SSSniperwolf. This is a MREL source about it. [1][2]. Don't use those for notability, but they might help be usable to de-orphan the article. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines; I couldn't find more GNG passable sources other than this and this, other than several stories of the mentioned dispute, lists, and profiles. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 22:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although the article currently does not meet notability, there are sources cited above that would allow this topic to achieve notability. Using the guideline that an article should not be deleted if the sources exist to improve it, this article should be retained. Rublamb (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons I stated above. Also, the article could be improved with reliable sources. Madison Elizabeth Michelle (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just not enough coverage to meet notability. Dexerto has a few articles about the feud with SSniperwold [3] and [4], but it's a marginally reliable source per our guidelines. A forbes interview [5] is fine but there is little to no information outside the interview, so it's still a primary source. I was surprised to learn she's from Toronto and actually has set up a foundation for the SickKids Hospital here, one of the best pediatric hospitals in Canada, but there is no coverage about it! Using her real name, the best I could find was [6] where she guest stars on a CBC web series/tv show. I'm frankly surprised she hasn't been interviewed by more media here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. But, honestly the article could be improved with reliable sources could be said about every single article on the project.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with Oaktree b, and as the user has pointed out, there's little reliable secondary sources that cover the subject extensively. The article can always be restored if the subject becomes notable. Spinixster (chat!) 02:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was on the fence, but being picked up by Forbes, even if only for an interview, tipped the scales for me. Seems to meet NBIO. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting NBIO. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Fails NBIO per Timothy and Oaktree b's source analyses. I also don't believe that the sources provided by Left guide establish notability. Interviews are generally non-independent primary sources. While the Forbes and Cosmo interviews are in-depth, and both are RSes, they lack independence and nobody has offered any independent, secondary sources that provide SIGCOV, and I can't find any. However, per Oaktree b, it's possible we'll be able to establish notability in the near future, so that's why my !vote is draftify. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:18, 21 January 2024 (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.