Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishtank (series)

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 redirect‎ to Sam Hyde. While there was good-faith support for keep among some less policy-based arguments, a thorough analysis of sources undemined the independence of some sources with extensive coverage. Several !votes were phrased as "delete" rather than "redirect, but beyond bare statements of preference (and some of the delete !votes don't even do that much with respect to redirection), but no argument was given for why a redirect to the target, which already briefly mentions Fishtank, would not be valid. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fishtank (series)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, 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}}.

[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)

BLARed this a bit ago as it didn't appear notable to me. Still doesn't. One source has been added since from Sports Keeda which is regarded as unreliable per its entry at WP:RSP. As I had it before, I still believe this should be redirected to Sam Hyde. Also, it's worth noting that some Sam Hyde fans know about the BLAR and are not happy about it, so that may be an issue to watch out for during these proceedings. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned by one of the ip contributors of the fishtank page, this show has reached millions of watch hours while also amassing an upward of 15k viewers for a 24/7 live camera show. This is no small feat. Even if not too many news articles are covering it, it still has a strong fanbase and thousands of clips. I think this is enough for notability. Redonimo (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seconding what Redonimo said.

AsyarSaronen (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original mod ‘QuietHere’ shouldn’t be a mod, it’s fairly obvious this show wasn’t small, it’s also fairly obvious he/she is being biased and opportunistic when trying to suppress content they don’t align with politically. Abuse of power! The page should stay! :) 2A00:23C4:108:BB01:3969:2B17:3C5:8BAA (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting, by the way, that those viewership numbers are not sourced. They are mentioned in the reception section, but neither of the sources in that section mention those numbers. And viewership numbers alone, regardless of whether they're verifiable, don't necessarily translate to notability if the series isn't getting coverage from independent reliable sources. Wikipedia has rules about this stuff for good reason, and if this series doesn't meet those parameters then it's simply not notable. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Define what is considered "notable"?

Using Sam Hyde as a primary source showing his analytics page, we can see that 57,000 active users are all, at the same time, watching a new medium of livestreaming that has never been accomplished before, during its debut. Furthermore, we can see from subsequent advertisements of the show on the Sam and Nick's Perfect Clips YouTube channel (This is the official YouTube channel) that viewership on the trailer is 333k views, with fishtank.live viewership in the early portions of the show being between 10-24k. If we really want to be pedantic about the whole "notability" situation, we can probably get Jet Neptune or Sam Hyde to publish the analytics numbers as a primary source.

https://twitter.com/wigger/status/1648593968186130435?s=20

(123) Sam Hyde’s Psychotic Reality Show | Fishtank S1 - YouTube

(123) 🔴 Fishtank is LIVE 🐟 50% OFF Weekend - YouTube

I know you might want to say that Twitter isn't a reliable source, but as per Wikipedia:RSP, it is considered generally unreliable UNLESS THE AUTHOR IS A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT. Same thing goes for YouTube. Generally, I know Wikipedia tries to shy away from using YouTube sources, but these are all from the primary source, that being Sam Hyde's official YouTube channel or official Twitter account. Much of the other published content about the show is direct video with voiceover from community members. You should explain how direct recordings of the show itself are not reliable independent sources. 138.88.107.147 (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the definition of notability, look here. I would also like to note that Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says that "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability". When notability is at issue, which it is here, then primary sources like a TV host's self-reported viewership numbers do not contribute to solving that issue. And I don't think subject-matter expertise is relevant here either; that's usually reserved for academic material or art criticism. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find that the article, while somewhat lacking in length and depth due to a short lifespan, should be preserved. It is not too dissimilar from other projects such as The Jerma985 Dollhouse, and barring the claimed controversial nature of the creator (a factor that should not play any significant role in the decision process as per WP:NPOV) I see no reason that undue scrutiny should be placed on this article as opposed to its contemporaries. Furthermore, while the issue of citing primary sources is obvious, it is hard to gauge internal statistics otherwise; in cases where the content is directly hosted on a website as opposed to a streaming service, unless we are to use external sites such as SimilarWeb, we are inherent limited. Although I understand concerns regarding issues of unreliability, I think that the sources provided overall are able to consistently cover the topic, one which is of similar scope and quality when compared to other projects and entries also found in the livestreams category.

DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerma985 Dollhouse's coverage is from a significant list of reliable publications, and it won a notable award. These things are not equal, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not count. And I've never made any claims about the creator or his supposedly controversial nature, nor would I disagree to the irrelevance of that factor.

As for the viewership numbers that respondents keep obsessing over, let me be clear about this: If those numbers aren't being covered by reliable publications, then do they even matter? We have guidelines such as WP:SINGLEVENDOR which make clear that if numbers aren't being reported on then they aren't worth including, and I think the same notion applies here. That the numbers in question here aren't even sourced to begin with makes the whole argument behind them look really weak. They aren't even verified, let alone by a publication which could confirm their value. They're a moot point without that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You offer no solutions through your assessment, which is quite telling. This was obviously a notable event and show, the YouTube and Twitter numbers undeniably reflect that, it is disingenuous to insinuate otherwise, more so if you consider Sam’s Follower/Subscriber count AND the fact that he is the biggest streamer on YouTube behind Tim Poole. It’s not an alien concept that they could garner a fraction of their total following at any one moment. Let’s be serious for a moment, please. KEEP. 2A00:23C4:108:BB01:9030:FA39:F384:FC4D (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to redirect to Sam Hyde's page, which I stated above. And I've been entirely serious throughout this entire process; I'm explaining how Wikipedia handles these matters, and unfortunately, regardless of your claims, these things need to meet notability requirements. What you're asking is for me to let this be kept based on your claims of Hyde's online success, but that assumption not backed up by reliable sources amounts to original research which is not allowed. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be redirected to Sam's page when it's a separate thing entirely? It's related to Sam and it should be noteworthy on his page, but Fishtank itself deserves its own page because it was a huge group project far bigger than any one individual. The viewers were substantial and their veracity isn't being questioned by anyone here other than you, funny that. Clearly the reason being because you are a self described 'queer' and you are trying to censor a guy who has been censored for years due to some of his more uncouth behaviour. You are doing so because you believe the permeation of his content is bad for society. C00l, whatever, nobody else cares. Everybody here on this comment discussion can see that you're just an irked bozo that doesn't want Sam Hyde to get any more exposure than he has already had. Not that there's anything wrong with that or that it matters in the slightest, but at least make your intentions known - they're very obvious anyway. The page shall stay. 2A00:23C4:108:BB01:853E:6520:DFB0:5F23 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not even QuietHere is denying the numbers, it's just that views are simply completely irrelevant to whether the article should be kept - what Wikipedia cares about is not big numbers, but in-depth reliable sourcing. You are not helping your case by calling into question people for being queer or by calling those who disagree with you "irked bozos". Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Alduin2000 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were denying the authenticity of the numbers further up the chain, or at least calling them into question. What is not reliable about fishtank? Nobody is questioning it happened or the veracity of the figures cited, there are hundreds upon hundreds of hours of footage of it on YouTube and Twitter. What exactly isn't reliably sourced within the current article? Queer people do not like Sam Hyde, I should know given I am also Queer, and I do not like Sam Hyde because he is heavily bigoted :) What I do not like is people that clearly have agendas. 2A00:23C4:108:BB01:4261:5382:E201:8470 (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was calling the numbers in question because there's no source backing them up. There is no veracity behind them if someone just wrote 'em down, and given how many apparent Sam Hyde fans this ordeal has attracted, those numbers are even less reliable because they could've been fudged. And since those numbers have been the only thing close to a legitimate point of argument anyone voting keep on this has made (to which WP:BIGNUMBER is very relevant), I've had nothing else to discuss in this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, same argument as DvcDeBlvngis said Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: two new references were added last night, both about Alex Stein but neither mentioning Fishtank or his role in it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is whynow a reliable source? This article by Passionfruit is quite detailed and I think a reliable source. The 4KOB source in the article also seems ok. If the whynow source is reliable then I can see a case for keep, otherwise I'm leaning towards delete. All the other sources in the article seem unreliable (or completely unrelated to the article subject). Also, a lot of keep arguments currently seem to just be BIGNUMBER, it would be better to focus on sourcing. Alduin2000 (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the Passionfruit source while removing the Sportskeeda one, if that helps your judgement. AsyarSaronen (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sam Hyde, where it is mentioned as an alternative to deletion. Of the sources that prima facie could be reliable, they refer to biographical details of one of the contestants, not this show in particular. None of the other sources are reliable (e.g. Sportskeeda is listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Unreliable_sources). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more policy-backed comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SWinxy (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is substantial significance to this article as it is one of the many footnotes in internet entertainment and history, I can tell there is a bias against this due to it being in relation to Sam Hyde and all of the controversies that come with him. I hope we see to look past that and more as just an 'internet show' with much regard for it to have its own page. Second to DvcDeBlvngis.BlackMesaMoment01 (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I still am not seeing any policy-based arguments from those advocating Keep who seem to rely on unverified viewer numbers which are not important for notability on Wikipedia. These personal attacks are unacceptable and if they continue, there will be blocks. Right now, I'm leaning towards a Redirect. By the way, I am not familiar with this series creator and whatever views he might have. If you are new to AFDs, what matters is reliable, independent, secondary sources that establish notability, that's the only "agenda" here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. These sources seem really questionable and there doesn't seem to be enough to support an article. To the extent the series is significant without being Wikipedia-notable, its significance can be discussed in the Sam Hyde article until such time as there is sufficient high-quality independent coverage to support a separate article. -- Visviva (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the canvassing, appears to pass WP:GNG. [1][2][3]. The second source has a bit of an advertorial vibe, but enough negative information is peppered in that I changed my mind about it. There is plenty of WP:SIGCOV. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the nature of this as a live stream, it could be helpful to examine WP:PERSISTENCE; there hasn't been independent reliable coverage since it ended. —siro χ o 04:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if WP:PERSISTENCE, part of WP:NEVENT, applies to non-events though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a live stream, albeit a long one, so it's at least worth considering. I don't have a strong sense on GNG for this one, because reliability (and to some degree, independence) is a bit difficult to establish on any sources. —siro χ o 06:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. What would make this a non-event? Sounds like a livestream would fit the definition to me.

2. Guidelines aren't just for the very specific things they're designed to target. They all give us a better understanding of Wikipedia generally, and their logic can usually be applied generally because the site is meant to be as consistent as is reasonable.

3. Take note of how WP:PERSISTENCE links directly to WP:SUSTAINED which is part of the main notability page and is saying essentially the same thing. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd consider this to be more like a television show than an event. But great point about WP:SUSTAINED. Sounds like a guideline that could be applied here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:NTV were an actual guideline and not just an essay then that could make more sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almost all of the prior arguments are clear as a bell canvassed, and don't really address the question of whether there is or is not sufficient material about this subject in reliable and independent sources to sustain an article on this subject. Comments which directly address this would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a comment above without a !vote. Per relist I took another look at sources, see table below. Have to say Delete (redirect without merge is fine too) unless more coverage turns up, and coverage has been basically silent the past month per Google news. —siro χ o 09:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WIN.gg has previously been considered as "adequate sourcing" as per Template:Did you know nominations/Lando Norris, with more information on team members here. I would argue it does meet Wikipedia:GNG. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link. Sadly, it makes me even more skeptical of win.gg. They're explicitly tied to esports betting via "WIN Group". Via a different article from that same publication, they seem to partner and promote and promote some folks they cover [4]. No judgement towards the previous editors, as they may have not had such insight at the time. —siro χ o 04:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is unfortunate, however, as far as I am aware there is no established link between Fishtank and the WIN Group. As well, the site has a separate category for livestreaming, which the article in question was filed under. Said category covers a multitude of various streaming culture related topics on various platforms, from Twitch to Kick. While not exactly being the best look, unless a definitive link is established between Fishtank and WIN Group, I think we should not go out and assume that it is a non-independent promotional article. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
KOB.com	interview with contestant	~ local news		✘ No
WIN.gg	? Tied to promotion of esports (see above), unsure how it impacts this discussion at this time.	"WIN.gg is a proud part of Final Boss Entertainment." Can't find anything beyond a defunct game studio. Not enough on team members [5]. Very little discussion on wikipedia [6]. edit to add: Seem to be tied to esports betting and promotion via WIN group (see discussion above)		✘ No
Passionfruit		~ founded by daily dot, no consensus per WP:RSP		~ Partial
POPTOPIC	?	cited two times across Wikipedia including this article		✘ No
whynow	platform for telling artists stories, advertises itself as not independent	?		✘ No
D Magazine	?	?	not about article subject	✘ No
Jewish Journal	?	?	not about article subject	✘ No
Know Your Meme via MSN	~ KYM staff writer	current consensus is to avoid in BLP, at best "no consensus" for their produced videos. As this article has a lot in the way of living people, seems risky		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete: per WP:SUSTAINED. Some of the sources are arguable in terms of reliability etc. but ultimately not seeing evidence that the vast majority of these sources are reliable and certainly no sustained coverage even if they are. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have a added another source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/what-is-fishtank-live-and-where-can-i-watch-it-sam-hyde-s-online-reality-show-explained/ar-AA1a7rWp. KatoKungLee (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
seems this just an automatically aggregated article from KnowYourMeme, which is not a reliable source considering it's User Generated. AsyarSaronen (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AsyarSaronen worth noting that, as Siroxo has it in their table, it is by a KYM staff writer. WP:KNOWYOURMEME does not mention staff writers and so it's harder to assume that article is as unreliable as the rest of the site. A lot of sources considered unreliable for user-generated content have also started editorial sections which should be assessed individually. Regardless, it's still questionable, as is every other source, so I'm still not convinced and stand by my redirect vote. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable online Big Brother clone; Siroxo's table makes it clear. No redirect. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 5 July 2023 (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.