Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DougDoug

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 most frequently cited reasons for deletion are (1) insufficiency of reliable sources and (2) that the article focuses only on the YouTube and gaming career, and not about the person as a whole. However, while they are in the minority, I believe the "keep" side have made an adequate rebuttal to these points. Skyshifter mentioned that several of the listed sources, including PC Gamer and Polygon are reliable for an article about a game content presenter, and I also find it reasonably persuasive that a biography of the nature will be focused on the creative content and career rather than personal details. There was a late suggestion to draftify the article, but having looked at the article, I see no violation of any core content policy and whatever shortcomings the article may have are not severe enough to justify that action. The provided sourcing may of course be used to expand the article further. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DougDoug[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)

If you came here because a post on reddit, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Another of those Youtubers where it is impossible to write a cohesive biography about them. There are some lazy journalism/churnalism highlighting some individual streams, but all fails to actually talks about his life in any meaningful way. Without all the non-independent sources removed, the article would be in a even sadder state, which is not we want since we want our articles to mainly depend on independent sources. Without all the tweets fluffing the article up, this page would consist of 1. Random info on two streams he did 2. Mention of a minor fundraiser 3. the fact that he won Streamer award

A WP:before search on google and gbooks only found unreliable Sportskeeda and other unusable sources. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Entertainment, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kotaku is a RS, but it really only talks about a speedrun. Most of the rest of the sources are non-RS per source tool. Esports ones are fine, but they really only talk about speedruns, I'm not sure we can build an article using those articles alone. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beyond confirmation of speedruns, there isn't enough to build an article. I can't find anything in RS we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he is a good content creator, there just aren't enough RS out there to keep the article currently. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 16:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I'm a fan, but I'm just not seeing enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. Happy to be proven wrong. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 20:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another fan of DougDoug here. Although some of the sources used are reliable, they're mostly about his streaming/internet career, and not about his life as a whole. The award does provide a fraction of notability, but that's about it. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As a moderator of Doug's chat, I honestly do agree entirely with everything said thus far. There's not enough that we know about Doug At All™ to actually warrant a valid page period, let alone one meeting WP:ANYBIO. EarthToAccess (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources 4 through 8 are significant coverage about Doug or at very least his main work (which is as a streamer and a speedrunner), plus the Streamer Awards is a notable award. I don't see why we would need sources talking about his life, that seems like an exaggeration; sources giving significant coverage to his work as a streamer and speedrunner (which is indeed the main thing he's known for) should be enough (which are sources 4 through 8). Plus there's a clearly notable award that not only was he nominated for but won. Skyshifter ^talk 01:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Skyshifter here. I think there's a misunderstanding with applying only WP:NBIO along with dismissing several of the sources because it focuses more on his work than him. While yes, he is a person, he's also a YouTuber who creates web content, so WP:WEB applies here too. An article about a YouTuber should be expected to cover the type of content he makes as that's the most crucial information readers would reasonably wish to learn about. In my opinion, the sources Skyshifter highlighted do contain commentary and review-esque material that provides WP:WEBCRIT evidence. Also, one could argue that WP:CREATIVE applies, considering that his content has received significant coverage as well. It seems people just interpret WP:BLP as "an article about a person must be a full biography of the person's life" rather than "a biography of a person's life must be protected from misinformation and vandalism," and don't consider any other possible notability criteria that also applies. Personally I don't see any BLP violations from using secondary sources about his videos, so I vote Keep. ~~If this somehow gets closed as delete instead of relisted, I'm considering doing a deletion review anyways~~ Striking per suggestion. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with the article is not of notability guidelines, that's why I didn't cite any acronyms.

DougDoug's fundraiser is already mentioned in the Rosa (sea otter) article, and the Doug's Streamer Award is mentioned in The Streamer Awards.

This means that the only non-redundant, and original information that could be said is that a streamer did three streams. That falls squarely under the WP:PAGEDECIDE territory. The related articles already cover much of the content in the article. The article only has an illusion of cohesiveness because of the numerous tweets cited. This kind of article is especially vulnerable to NPOV troubles if DougDoug happens to get into YouTuber drama.

I like this content creator, I am a fan, but a Wikipedia article is more of a burden to its subject than it is a gift. Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do see where you're coming from a bit better, and some of the tweets should be trimmed. But I still believe he warrants an article. The Dot Esports and PC Gamer sources have background info about both him and his career, and even some of the sources about his streams delve a bit into him as well. I also found sources from Wargamer and Bloomberg that also provide usable info - the former about a DnD stream he did noting his other challenges, and another mentioning his AI-based content. Finally, even if parts of it are mentioned in other articles, I still don't see why that shouldn't contribute too. The Streamer Award should count per WEBCRIT, and we usually mention notable award wins in plenty of biographies even when mentioned in the award's article. If the fundraiser were the only event he received coverage for, I would say he doesn't merit an article. However, a notable fundraiser, plus an award win, plus reviews of his multitude of web content in various reliable outlets should equal a separate page for him. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skyshifter and PantheonRadiance. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I believe that deletion isn't the best policy unless there's undeniably not enough evidence to leave the article up. That, of course, does mean the article will need some work, but I'd rather opt for workshopping the article than straight up deleting it. HaapsaluYT (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate: For reasons mentioned by others, the article is not in a great state, which is common for the subject’s field. However, the subject is notable in their prolific use of spectator-infusion systems, as described in a recent PhD thesis on “speedrunning events, charity livestream events, and livestream interactivity”. I expect reliable sources to become more available over time as the field is better written about and studied. I think the subject would fall within WP:CREATIVE #2 (originator of using a combination of techniques, not an originator of any single one of them though), and arguably WP:CREATIVE #1 as well given his award. But since RSs are unfortunately lacking in the article to validate WP:CREATIVE, it needs some rework. Bert303 (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support draftication over deletion since this article has some potential. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.