Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CallMeCarson (3rd 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. ✗plicit 00:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CallMeCarson[edit]

[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)

Not an endorsement of deletion, but I'm opening this as a way to progress things forwards. It seems that most editors are agreed that CallMeCarson's main claim to notability is the allegations of sexual impropriety made against him in such articles as Daily Dot and Insider; however, they disagree on whether the allegations should be included or the article deleted. The reason for exclusion of the allegations would be WP:BLPCRIME. A previous AFD in January with no different sources, but not huge participation, concluded keep. — Bilorv (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of the talk page discussions: Theleekycauldron, DreamlessGlare, P37307, TrueQuantum, HTGS, Otr500, L33tm4n, PraiseVivec, Bangalamania, Corinal. — Bilorv (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think we should all be in agreement that the article should be deleted per the guideline stated. There isn't much notability other than the allegations; thus, it should be deleted per WP:BLPCRIME. L33tm4n (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🤠 welp theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I vote delete. It's unfortunate that his only notable thing about him can't even be mentioned on his page. DreamlessGlare (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed for reasons above I support delete Corinal (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. As I said on the talk page, the sources on an alleged crime/impropriety are not enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. There are plenty of people out there who have articles in reliable sources about their misdemeanors. This does not make someone notable. The subject is not a notable criminal, nor is there adequate coverage of his presumed original fame (YouTube). The previous restoration was a mistake. — HTGS (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it's going on my wall of stupid, to be sure— (it needs a better name) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I wouldn't blame yourself: unless it's a really high-profile topic, I find that I can never know whether something is notable until I'm midway through writing it, and by then (unless it's definitely non-notable) it's worth gathering all the sources, pressing "Publish changes" and letting others contest it if they want. I think it was worth presenting the best case for notability and if we find it non-notable then that stops others (hopefully) from trying to create it again (or gives a useful WP:REFUND if there's more coverage). — Bilorv (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, yeah—the article's notability was really on the fence for a while, and i think it was worth discussion. i appreciate the kind words, thanks :) i !vote to delete, per DreamlessGlare. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the coverage surrounding him has to do with the "forbidden knowledge" that won't go into the article anyway, so why have it in the first place? PraiseVivec (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Idea If Dexerto were considered a reliable source, then maybe there would be some grounds to keep Carson's article, seeing as how that outlet has significantly covered him. However, for whatever reason it's considered a "clickbait" website, so I guess nothing can be done about this article... unless there was a way to postpone the deletion process so that we can get consensus on whether or not Dexerto is truly a reliable source once more before going through the rest of this process, as it may contribute to the status of CallMeCarson's article. Just a little idea, though, but maybe later tonight I may ask on the VGS talk page if we can reconsider the source as reliable. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure why you think dexerto is a reliable source, especially for establishing notability, to me it seems clear that its sensationalism and extremely niche. Corinal (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Corinal: Wasn't arguing in support of this source, I was just commenting on how most of the articles I saw about him were from that outlet alone. When I went to check the consensus on Dexerto, all I saw was that it was unreliable due to its "click-bait" and little analysis of the site itself, which is why I decided to post my initial comment first. But if Dexerto is still considered unreliable for establishing notability, then I'm leaning towards Delete. Only other sources I could find were a basic name-drop on a NYT article and a Game Rant article from yesterday, which even if the outlet were fully reliable, wouldn't have much use seeing as how it also touches upon the allegations we voted to exclude via WP:BLPCRIME. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources that is the bedrock of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant and flimsy sourcing. One source is literally just a dead link to his YouTube "About" page. Another is to a random site called poolhall, which is also a dead link.--Doomslug1 (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tagging AviationFreak who voted in the previous discussion. As for me who also voted in the previous discussion, I'll remain neutral for now. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article should only exist if the allegations are included, as that is where notability comes from in this case. If including the allegations violates WP:HARM or WP:BLPCRIME, the allegations should not be included and the article should be deleted. AviationFreak💬 20:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am no expert in the subject area, but if this article is to exist, it should mention the sexting allegations. Weak keep, but with the sources and allegations included. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject, lacking the allegations (exclude per WP:BLPCRIME), is not notable. We are not a current news media outlet but an encyclopedia. Trying to add sensationalism as a reason for encyclopedia notability is insane. Just from what I read this is too flimsy to even attempt to cover. Even "if" there are charges, it would likely be federal concerning nude photographs of an under-aged person, and would just be a criminal act, not encyclopedia worthy. "If" nothing criminal results we (Wikipedia) would be spreading harmful content. In this case, possible inclusion fails all three points of the inclusion test. Without trying to figure out how to add the allegations, to add notability, there is none. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could be relevant but article must be improved. GamedevExpert^{(Talk to GamedevExpert)} 5:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete. The previous AfD was mostly Keep votes, some of which put forward that WP:GNG should be applied differently to internet personalities who don't attract traditionally sufficient coverage. I don't think I agree with that, and regardless of if I do or not, such a concept is not currently supportable with any policy we have. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 06:42, 23 August 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.