Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Cid

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 January 14.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Sandstein 19:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King Cid

[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)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. He is a YouTuber who has not been discussed in reliable sources independent of him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Another non-notable YouTuber with no third-party coverage and as such article is fueled entirely on non-viable sources. Aside from the inclusion of his legal troubles, it's badly-written promotional material. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable Youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is third-party coverage contrary to @Versace1608 and Beemer69:, and @Johnpacklambert and Mdaniels5757: are like WP:PERX. Can't say keep since I need input from the ones I'm pinging. ミラ P 00:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 02:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: Please lists the third-party coverage you found so we can analyze it. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: I didn't say I found it. Why else didn't I say keep? Just look in the sources of the article. ミラ P 16:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: The meager citations therein are not viable third-party sources that justify keeping the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beemer69: Analyze the sources one-by-one and explain why they don't count. ミラ P 18:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: You've never even edited the article, so it's curious as to why you're so driven on wanting to keep it. Its creator has several other articles up for AfD also due to lack of notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beemer69: Of course, I kept quiet for so long because all the articles I created that was tag for deletion are notable, I just felt the editor that tagged it doesn't really understand notability guidelines. (Techwritar (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Miraclepine: The sources in the article are self-published sources and are not third party coverage. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: Why are they self-published? (Techwritar (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: Firstly, third party sources (independent source) are sources that have no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. All the sources there are third-party sources that have editorial independence. Secondly, he passes WP:ENT because he has a large fan base, one million subscribers and about 2.2 million views on one of his videos on YouTube. (Techwritar (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Techwritar: Which of the sources cited in the article have editorial independence? Can you show us where you see members of their editorial team? Only the second source has an "About Us" page, and there's no indication that said source is a reputable news outlet. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: All(Techwritar (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Techwritar is the creator of this and several other articles currently up for deletion due to lack of notability and bad sourcing, so he is going to blindly defend them no matter what and brook no opposing views whatsoever. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:36, 5 January 2020 (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.