Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LDShadowLady

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LDShadowLady[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)

Number of viewers & rankings might qualify her but almost all the sources here are not valid. Not finding other acceptable relevant sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. Plenty of WP:OR here. Without much more sourcing this doesn't appear valid. JamesG5 (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was pretty skeptical myself to start here; I'm not one to think highly of YouTube streamers as being noteworthy subjects. But, a WP:BEFORE check on Google using the News filter seems to have turned up several sources which look to be potentially reliable. At least one or two call her the UK's top female gamer streamer, and there are a couple of articles specifically about her, with numerous mentions elsewhere. Some of the key ones I found:[1][2] This article needs work, but my search seems to indicate she might pass GNG. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently, the article is in need to a desperate rework if this article is kept as almost all sources are primary or unreliable. In regards to notability, I do not think the the subject is notable enough for a standalone article. The subject has garnered some coverage like the two dedicated articles by Evening Standard and Gazette Review ([3], [4]) as pointed out by Red Phoenix in addition to its mentions in listicles. However when applying WP:GNG how must consider the reliablity of the sources. The Evening Standard has no consensus of reliablity per WP:RSP and I am not convinced about the reliablity of Gazette Review. The reliablity aspect is especially important here as we are dealing with a WP:BLP. The other brief mentions in mostly unreliable sources (with the exception of The Guardian [5]) do not demonstrate notablity hence fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Guardian article counts is significant coverage in a reliable source. So does ABC news, opinion of a paid editor, [6] so that passes the requirements of the general notability guidelines. She gets coverage in Daily Mail [7] and elsewhere that aren't considered reliable sources anymore apparently, but doesn't matter, you only need two reliable sources found from searching through the many Google news search results to prove she is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 17:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: Two brief mentions of the subject in opinion pieces in reliable sources (The Guardian and ABC News) do not constitute as significant coverage. To quote WP:GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Here plainly this is the case. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ABC one has them doing a long interview with her. IGN translated [8] shows she was in a Minecraft game Minecraft:_Story_Mode#A_Portal_to_Mystery_(Episode_6). She gets brief mention in Marie Claire [9] "The ultimate vlogger event is coming to London for the first time" calling her "the UK’s top female gamer on YouTube". Significant is what they say not how many words they say it in. Dream Focus 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: The interview from ABC from my understanding is an informal interview with an eight-year old talking about the generational gap in entertainment with a mention of the subject which does not add any notablity. But even if it was with the subject it would not add significant coverage since WP:GNG requires coverage to be in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The brief mentions in IGN and Marie Claire also do not fulfill as significant coverage as there is not in-depth. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. The label "the UK's top female gamer on YouTube" does not automatically make the subject notable enough to warrant a separate page. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 18:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Passes the subject specific guideline for Entertainers "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.". WP:ENTERTAINER has been met so the article can be kept. Dream Focus 19:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: Understandably the subject has 4.9 million subscribers which is a considerable fan base. However, that guideline means they are likely to be notable and meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Currently, the subject has not passed WP:BASIC (WP:GNG) with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject hence it should be deleted. Perhaps, if there were more reliable coverage, even if more not fully in-depth, I would suggest "Keep" but currently this is certainly not the case so I still think it should be deleted due to the lack of notablity. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability clearly states A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. It does not have to pass both, never has, never will. I don't know why some people have trouble understanding something written that clear. Dream Focus 23:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The infomation that informed my previous comment was from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria. In any case, on this occassion the complete lack of significant, reliable coverage demonstrates that the subject is not notable to have a separate page. The fact the subject has a unusually high number of subscribers does not convince me otherwise. This is especially true since the current article relies heavily on primary sources and database entries and on we need to be verifable more so on a WP:BLP. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 22:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A primary source would be the person talking about themselves. YouTube has a clear display showing how many subscribers someone has, and their system is designed so it can not be cheated these days. Brief mentions of the person in various reliable sources confirms they are a popular YouTuber. Dream Focus 19:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have reached an impasse becuase we fundamentally have diverging views as to what counts and contributes to notablity but it was nice discussing it with you and am glad you assumed good faith. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 11:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero of the sources actually in the article are reliable secondary coverage. I agree with Spy-cicle about the sources not in the article. --JBL (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage identified so far is in unreliable sources, a passing mention (The Guardian) or an opinion writer's interview with his eight-year-old daughter (ABC News), which is in no imaginable way an acceptable source for a WP:BLP. Sandstein 09:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think she is borderline for WP:GNG. The articles I found have already been mentioned and debated. The subject has a very large following of fans, though, so I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:31, 7 February 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.