Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CallMeCarson (2nd nomination)

CallMeCarson[edit]

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. Users felt that AviationFreak provided a more compelling case for notability than the nomination did in demonstrating WP:BLP1E. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[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)

Fairly clear case of WP:BLP1E (with two events), as no reliable sources seem to discuss his actual YouTube/streaming career (the type of content he produces, for example, is only mentioned in passing in the sources about his controversies). Simple markers of popularity in the form of subscriber counts (currently sourced from SocialBlade) are not sufficient to establish notability under WP:BASIC.

Also possibly applicable: WP:BLPCRIME, as Carson's status as a high-profile individual is questionable given the criteria in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. WP:PSEUDO also seems like an appropriate essay. — Goszei (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Full disclosure, I accepted the Draft of this article a few days ago at AfC. In my opinion there should be a guideline with a bright-line rule on YouTuber (or internet personality/entertainer more generally) notability, but that's another discussion for another time. As far as this article goes, I don't think WP:BLP1E applies here. The guideline is clearly designed to weed out articles about folks who were not in any way notable prior to an event, and received coverage only relating to that event. This could be used in cases like Kimberly "Sweet Brown" Wilkins, which redirects (as it should) to Ain't Nobody Got Time for That. In this case, however, Carson's coverage occurred because of his prior notability and status. If an "average joe" had been accused of sexual misconduct involving a minor, it would cause a small and local media blip. In this case, it is much larger. I would be fine with a split of the article into "CallMeCarson" and "CallMeCarson sexual misconduct allegations" (or something similar), but in this case I feel the subject is clearly notable and the article should be kept. AviationFreak💬 07:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AviationFreak: The assertion that Carson was "notable" in the sense of WP:N under the GNG (the current governing guideline) before these allegations is clearly false. As I stated, the article currently has zero SIGCOV sources about his pre-allegation career, and I am unable to find any through my searches. If we follow that guideline, this is a case of a non-notable individual faced with a WP:BLP1E.

You alluded to the idea that there should be a different standard of "notability" for online entertainers, but I disagree with this view – I still think the GNG is important as a foundation for all articles because it establishes that simple popularity (i.e. subscriber count) is not good enough for an article. I generally share the views espoused in WP:HARM#TEST that Biographies should not be dominated by a single event in the subject's life. GNG also helps solve this problem: if there was reliable sourcing outside of these controversies, we could write a balanced biography. Because there aren't, it is impossible to do this and the article will remain in this WP:PSEUDO state for the foreseeable future. — Goszei (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even outside of this notability-outside-of-one-event problem, the events detailed in the allegations are frankly scandal-mongering/gossip material (WP:SENSATIONAL), so they are not notable. — Goszei (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hold to my previously stated views that WP:BLP1E is only designed to apply to people who were not in any way notable prior to their involvement in an event. I also don't think the article's sources are WP:SENSATIONAL, as they are rooted in fact and don't appear to be blowing the story out of proportion or twisting details of it. I'm not sure what you meant by calling "the events detailed in the allegations" scandal-mongering/gossip. Even if current policy does not see Carson as notable (which I'm not convinced it doesn't), I would push for the inclusion of this article based on WP:IAR. Any subject who has millions of people actively interested in and aware of them is notable in my mind, regardless of their coverage in secondary reliable sources. I would say this of any subject with a following of millions, which is why I stated above that there should be a guideline dealing with internet notability. AviationFreak💬 15:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also argue that WP:NOTBURO applies here - it's important to have this article up, even if King's past YouTube career isn't well-documented. Theleekycauldron (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think enforcing policies on living persons is a point of bureaucracy, but rather one of our most important duties as responsible article writers. From WP:BLP: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Right now, the article is question is using the Toronto Sun (a tabloid) and Newsweek (a source considered "generally not reliable" at WP:RSPSRC). This is not good enough under BLP rules, and as I said I contend that it doesn't satisfy notability either. Insider and The Daily Dot are somewhat better, but still in-the-news churnalism that doesn't justify the existence of an article built entirely on biographical controversies. Considering the lack of other sourcing and the fact that Carson will likely not return to the public eye, the article will in likelihood remain in this state indefinitely. WP:NOTATABLOID (an essay) sums up my position rather well. — Goszei (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I nominated the article for creation after rewriting it. Mostly, I agree with AviationFreak (talk · contribs), and I'd add that King wouldn't be non-notable without the allegations. There are other sources writing about CallMeCarson, and I also agree that there should be a better standard for YouTubers, who can attract massive popularity with little attention from the media. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep, per the explanation that AviationFreak laid out. The new coverage meets WP:GNG ~RAM (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per AviationFreak. Article easily passes WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is not a case of BLP1E (reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event), then there must be at least one source (preferably multiple) that contain significant coverage of the subject outside of the event. As there are zero of these in the article, and no one has provided any, I struggle to see how it passes the GNG (AviationFreak is proposing a notability standard outside of GNG, which is an argument in its own right but not one under the purview of that guideline, to be clear). — Goszei (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2021 (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.