Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MrSuicideSheep

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrSuicideSheep[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)

Notability seems marginal at best. MrSuicideSheep gets virtually no RS hits. The YourEDM source, if reliable within its topic area, is pretty short, and the Billboard source, while claiming that Hilton is significant, is a sentence or two in a longer list. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment. @Roscelese: MrSuicideSheep is a YouTuber with over 10 million followers. He is also one of the biggest figures in the music scene on YouTube in general. I believe those facts alone are somewhat enough notability for a worthy article. However, I do agree that more reliable sources are needed (I could add more). Perhaps could you elaborate more on you stance? Richarddo1442 (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The number of followers a channel has or doesn't have on YouTube is completely irrelevant to our notability criteria — for Wikipedia's purposes, notability is measured entirely in terms of how much reliable source coverage the topic does or doesn't have in published media of the journalistic variety, such as newspapers and magazines and books, not by measuring the footprint of his own self-published web presence. Of the six footnotes here, however, three are his own primary source content about himself, one more is a blog that does nothing to support notability, and another one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a listicle. The only source here that's actually getting him off the starting blocks in the notability race at all is The Georgia Straight — but that's the alt-weekly in his own hometown, so it doesn't represent enough coverage to get him to the finish line all by itself as the only substantive source in play. Even just a basic WP:GNG pass requires quite a bit more than just one solid source and a bunch of weaksauce junk. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment. Regarding the deletion of MrSuicideSheep, I can confirm that reliable source do exist. I don't know if you're well informed regarding popular EDM sites, but "Your EDM" is a relevant and reliable source within the EDM community. So is "EDM.com" and "Stereogum.com" (they're not referenced in the article, but see WP:NEXIST). You claiming that The Georgia Straight is the only "reliable source" is ignorant. I've also said that his number of followers ALONE did not make him notable (as I told Roscelese on her talk page), but also the fact that he is one of the most relevant and important music figures on YouTube. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not the state of sourcing of an article, and many other sources that aren't referenced on the article do exist on the web that re-affirm his relevancy in the community. I don't understand why you think the article should be deleted, instead of improved. A simple google search can show you that this is a respectable and well-known music curator, with many reliable EDM sites as sources of information. Richarddo1442 (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, we don't keep articles just because the creator says better sources exist than the ones he or she actually used — if you want an article you've created to get kept, then it's your responsibility to use the best sources in the article. You don't get to source stuff to Reddit (which is in the HOLY HELL TO THE NEVER class of sourcing), and then say that the article has to be kept because of Stereogum coverage you didn't use — if you want Stereogum to count toward establishing his notability, then you have to cite the Stereogum source so that we can evaluate whether it's helping or not.

As for what is or is not considered a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability, that test is not passed by a source's reputation within its own fandom. Wikipedia's standards for what constitutes a reliable source and what doesn't are what YourEDM would have to pass, and I'm not seeing any strong evidence that it does so at all. The EDM scene doesn't get to make up its own special standards for what's a reliable and notability-making source when it comes to EDM musicians — its sources still have to pass the exact same reliability tests as any other sources, such as not being WordPress blogs. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Youtube hits are junk and not a suitable reference. AfDs are full of youtubers with "a billion hits" and yet no mention in even 2nd tier news outlets (is the penny dropping yet). The references are either primary (and thus don't support GNG), or the one Billboard reference that only lists the subject as an artist by a record label executive, who is himself in a list of online music companies. The only good RS I found was a Forbes mention, which I would count as being an independent RS (just). However, WP:GNG needs several. This is particularly so when the subject themselves are in the media industry, and thus there should be a plentiful supply of RS on notability. In this case, there is just one (just). Someday, the penny will drop regarding the disconnect between "billions" of youtube hits, and zero mention in even 2nd tier media sources. WP's WP:GNG criteria exposes the youtube hits junk, and works perfectly if adheared to appropriately. Britishfinance (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author Comment. @Britishfinance: Well, what about this Billboard reference (reposted by Stereogum)? What about this other Billboard reference? We can't ignore this references, which are coming from a reliable source in the music industry.

In this case, there is just one (just). That is clearly an exaggeration. If you do your research, you will find that there are many relevant sources that mention this music curator. He might not have an entire article to himself in CNN, Fox News, or whatever you think is a "reliable" source, since it seems you believe the sources I presented aren't reliable for some reason. Music curators usually don't get that much attention from these type of sites, however that doesn't mean they aren't notable. Trap Nation is not mentioned by any major news articles either. Would Trap Nation deserve being nominated for deletion? No, because the channel is still relevant and notable due to it's position within the industry it belongs to, and because reliable sources in EDM and music in general make mention of it. If you look at the references on that article, you'll see that most sources are redirecting to the same sites I've presented so far, such as "YourEDM" "StoneyRoads" "Billboard", etc... Even "Tubefilter" mentions both channels in here. That doesn't make Trap Nation "not notable" because those are the sources that matter. So, please stop saying that there are no sources, that is clearly not true. I already explained that numbers alone don't matter, but numbers, relevancy, and media attention. You're both not making a point by repeating that argument, as I've made clear we're on the same page on that. I must say I still don't understand why not considering improving the article, instead of deleting it. If the state of sourcing is the major problem currently, then I can add more sources, just like I said earlier.

Answering to what @Bearcat: said: Firstly, we don't keep articles just because the creator says better sources exist than the ones he or she actually used - it's your responsibility to use the best sources in the article. You don't get to source stuff to Reddit (which is in the HOLY HELL TO THE NEVER class of sourcing), and then say that the article has to be kept because of Stereogum coverage you didn't use — if you want Stereogum to count toward establishing his notability, then you have to cite the Stereogum source so that we can evaluate whether it's helping or not.

That's false. Read WP:NEXIST, again. You're missing the point. We are discussing whether the subject of this article deserves being deleted because it fails Notability. We're not discussing whether the article is poorly source, hence it deserves being deleted. The state of sourcing or citation of an article has nothing to do with whether subject of the article is notable or not. I don't need to put the sources on the article in order to reinforce the notability of the subject. (That's why I'm sharing the sources with you through here, not the article.) Yes, the current state of sourcing in the Article is pretty bad, and that Reddit reference was a redirect to something he said personally on a AMA, it wasn't a reference to prove notability lol. That's why, again, I'm offering to amend my lack of references and add more along with information in order to prevent a Stub. Remember Wikipedia articles are not a final draft. With all this said, it still doesn't mean he's not notable. If you want to nominate the article for deletion for it being too poorly written, or having very few references, then go ahead, but don't say it's not worth covering in Wikipedia after I've shown you sources that disprove what you both said. He is relevant. Richarddo1442 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Firstly, a source doesn't automatically support notability just because his name is present in it. Lots of people have their names mentioned in newspaper or magazine articles that aren't about them, so the notability test is not just "is his name present in a source" — it is "how much substantive content about him does the source contain?" Again, the onus is on you to understand the difference between "a source that just trivially mentions his name" and "a source that actually helps to establish his notability by being about him".

And no, I'm not missing any points either. It's true that an article doesn't have to already be perfect right off the bat, but it's not true that we simply assume notability for an article that hasn't properly demonstrated or sourced any notability in the first place — if you want the article to be kept, then yes, the onus is on you to make sure that there is a solid and well-sourced notability claim present in the article right away. No, an article doesn't have to already be at a "featured article candidate" level of quality right off the bat — but there is still a certain minimum standard of quality (a valid notability claim and solid sourcing to support it) that an article has to attain before it becomes keepable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richarddo1442: We're not recommending deleting the article because it's not perfect, we're recommending deleting it because we have all looked for sourcing that would support notability and it does not exist. If you think we're missing something, you need to show it to us in order to change our opinion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese:"we have all looked for sourcing that would support notability and it does not exist." That's not true. I already adressed that issue on this thread; which means you either: 1. disagree, or 2. didn't read it. If you disagree, you have to refute my claims and explain why you disagree, not rewrite your initial stand. "If you think we're missing something, you need to show it to us in order to change our opinion." I already did. I would suggest you read my previous comments (if you haven't), before you respond. That way we're on the same page. "We're not recommending deleting the article because it's not perfect" No one said you recommended deleting the article because it's not perfect. Richarddo1442 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2019 (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.