Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaun (YouTuber)

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. Go Phightins! 11:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun (YouTuber)[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)

Small time YouTuber (not that YouTube popularity is any indication of notability) with c. 300k subs whose only "decent" claims to notability are this Pop Dust article, by no means a reliable source, and this small mention in a Forbes piece. PK650 (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's close to the line but the Forbes article has four paragraphs under a dedicated section heading. There are also a couple of decent hits in Google Scholar 1,2. There could be more but "Shaun" is a horribly generic name to try to search for. Taken with the other stuff (e.g. Polygon) I think it is enough to make it over the line. It is weird that these decent sources are not used in the article. It would help if they were added. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The preprint been published in American Behavioral Scientist: doi:10.1177/0002764221989781. Grayfell (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, the Forbes article is an unreliable contributor piece. SK2242 (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DanielRigal. Mottezen (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article about a YouTuber who isn't noteworthy compared to his peers. Geminin667 (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I considered AFD when cleaning this article up, but what tipped me over to 'keep' was the Hyperallergic source, as that outlet has positive reputation for arts coverage. I had previously removed the Forbes cite per WP:FORBESCON. I'm skeptical the Popdust article meets RS, but perhaps it could be added as well. Regardless, existing sources seem sufficient to me. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It can be a bit difficult to assess the notability of YouTubers as YouTube itself is—for better or worse—generally not considered admissible evidence. It is likely that a lot of them—including this one—pass WP:ENTERTAINER as they have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, but it's difficult to find WP:RELIABLE sourcing to back that up. As DanielRigal notes, some sources can be found using Google Scholar, though it is difficult to search for someone with as a generic name as "Shaun"—adding keywords like "BreadTube", "Contrapoints", or "Hbomberguy" to the search ameliorates this somewhat and results in a few additional hits. Ultimately, I find that Shaun is sufficiently prominently mentioned in BreadTube coverage as one of the main figures thereof that—even if the individual notability, independent of the wider BreadTube phenomenon, is insufficient to warrant a standalone article (which is something I'm not sure of, I would need to do more of a deep dive into the sources to assess that)—it would at least be motivated to merge the content from this article to the BreadTube one. Considering that the other four YouTubers that are as frequently mentioned as major BreadTube figures—ContraPoints, Hbomberguy, Lindsay Ellis, and Philosophy Tube—all have stand-alone articles, merging the content from this article to the BreadTube one would seem quite out of place and I think keeping a separate article is the preferable alternative. TompaDompa (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with TompaDompa above --Gwikor Frank (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per TompaDompa. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notice Shaun posted this article on his twitter https://twitter.com/shaun_vids/status/1372179424049790982?s=20. I would like to remind people that to be included in Wikipedia, an article has to be reliably sourced and notable. I would also like to mention that this article will be deleted or not based on the consensus, not by a straight up and down vote of keeps vs deletes. Bluefist ^talk 13:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{Not a ballot}} might be of use here later if necessary, but not right now as it is not to be used pre-emptively. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past precedent; see User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_YouTubers. We delete YouTubers unless they show WP:SIGCOV; Forbes is garbage now. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with TompaDompa and DanielRigal. Also, the fact that Shaun posted a screenshot of this article on his Twitter does not really seem relevant to me; people are allowed to point out that there is a page about them and it shouldn't affect anything unless their fans come in and change the page en masse, or something along those lines. Blellington (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2021 (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.