Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Samuels

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. (non-admin closure) Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 11:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Samuels[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)

Article is about a non notable YouTuber with little to no reliable sources, all while written in the POV of a fan. Cheers. Wime Pocy 15:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. Cheers. Wime Pocy 15:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep Subject wasn't notable enough to have an article (no doubt created by a fan) while he was alive and his death doesn't magically change that. Very little legitimate third-party coverage outside of the few sources in the article, some of which were removed for being deprecated. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 15:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical that he is notable enough, but deletion is not a way to do it. Mario Jump 83! 02:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote as seen above. I guess he does pass notability guidelines, but the article itself was fan-created and needs work to sound neutral in tone. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like many of the non-notable/deprecated sources have been removed. Also found a New York Times obit which helps cover some of the claims. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Probably the article should be up for improvement, but not deletion. This person was notable enough, and proof of that is that his death became a worldwide trending topic, as well as coverage on sites such as New York Times, NBC, and more. It should be probably semiprotected because it can be either troll edited or fan edited. Pazguillermo (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject with reliable sources to support notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Weak keep I found this article from ITN, and in my opinion the subject isn't really that notable. But I believe that this can be at least be improved since there are some reliable sources that cover the subject. ~~Thus I believe that draftification is the best course of action, for now.~~ Mario Jump 83! 21:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not remotely a fan of Kevin Samuels and yet I was disappointed to learn that Wikipedia didn't even have an article for him until rumors of his death started circulating. During his life, Samuels garnered a modicum of significant coverage (e.g. Essence, Yahoo News, Parle), but he has now far surpassed the requirements of WP:BIO or WP:BASIC with "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" including the New York Times, NBC News, The Root, Complex, The Daily Beast, and NPR. I think as Wikipedians we have a healthy skepticism about so-called "influencers", but let us not be so jaded as to not recognize that Samuels easily meets our notability requirements. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly, well put! I was also surprised to see that Kevin Samuel did not have an article created until recently. Seems to be the case for many such controversial black "influencers", such as Dr. Umar Johnson.

While they might only be online personalities/influencers, I believe many of these people are driving cultural forces in the black community. Very influential, and as you've pointed out, the ample coverage in various reliable sources throughout the years helps Samuels fulfill Wikipedia's standards for notability. Mooonswimmer 14:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mooonswimmer so you're saying we should keep the article in order to fulfill WP's standards for notability for the black community? Seems like WP:RGW, if you ask me. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 10:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying we should keep the article because there's enough press coverage to fulfill WP:GNG. Also, we're supposed to assess things on a case per case basis. It's easy to dismiss these types, but they are not your average teenage Tiktok influencers. These are the black counterparts to all the "notable" alt-right personalities and conspiracy theorists who are also not as well known to more traditional institutions of public intellectualism and political activism, but have a huge hold over their commmunities.

Not quite sure how you made the WP:RGW connection. Mooonswimmer 11:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not, we can ignore race and still see that Samuels has an impact on a community. It's not pandering just because they happen to be black. June Parker (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per gobonobo Mooonswimmer 14:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reliable sources referenced by other editors are all referencing his untimely death. The subject was not notable enough to have an article while alive, and likely would not have been covered by organizations like the New York Times had he not died prematurely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NBA Fan44 (talk • contribs)
Keep ... very clearly meets notability guidelines, with several articles on several credible sources. Acekard, 17:55 May 8 2022
Weak keep. Before his death, he was covered by BET [1], Newsweek [2], Complex [3], and HipHopDX [4]. While there just barely wasn't enough proof of his notability at the time, the heavy coverage of his death by multiple, multiple major media outlets speaks to how polarizing, controversial, and ultimately popular his platform had become by then. Blackjays1 (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + Comment I find it a bit odd how this article talks broadly about him being a "Misogynist" when most of his misogyny was directed towards black women, but being phrased in such a way to imply he had it out for white people. This page has sources that dub him as actively Misogynoir and I feel like that term would make the article more consistent. June Parker (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2022 (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.