Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soph (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 delete. ✗plicit 02:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soph (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)

This article is about a person with questionable notability, it mostly seems to be uncited cruft about YouTuber drama. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are other pages just as this one. See LeafyIsHere . I believe it is fine. Rock19238 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The LeafyIsHere page has citations and notability. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Di (they-them) (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is that more notable Rock19238 (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has 15 secondary sources establishing notability. Also, it's pretty much irrelevant. The notability of Leafy has nothing to do with the notability of Soph. Again, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the leafy thing, you are right with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, you are literally saying that my article deserves deletion because it is not notable, yet cannot give concrete reasoning as to why it is not notable. Notability is subjective anyways. Let people enjoy things. Rock19238 (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. The majority of sources provided for Soph were YouTube (self published, so is unreliable; many of the videos were by Soph so are considered to be dependent primary sources), Reddit (again, self published) and Twitter (again, self published and dependent primary sources). While WP:ABOUTSELF allows for these types of sources for factual information, they cannot be used for establishing notability. That is how she is not notable CiphriusKane (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. If that is how it shall be defined, so be it. I will add independent secondary reliable sources later. Rock19238 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also why were my twitter and socialblade links removed. Twitter is on a pay to verify system now, making verification meaningless. Additionally, socialblade is literally just statistics. That sources exists on many other pages. Rock19238 (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Twitter is good for a primary source but does not provide notability, and so far as I know SocialBlade is not known to be reliable for the stats it reports on. Reliable coverage I can find is limited to just her removal from YouTube which makes me suspect this falls under WP:SINGLEEVENT. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If notability is being removed from YouTube, or being obnoxious, then go at it. But it's not. Lack of independent, significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obnoxious preteen gets banned on YouTube for being obnoxious. Really notable guys! Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 22:11, 4 April 2023 (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.