Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaush (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. even when discounting SPAs, it is clear that there is disagreement as to the level of sourcing and it is unlikely a consensus is going to form even with more time. Star Mississippi 19:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaush

[edit]


AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Vaush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has the notability of this subject improved since its nomination back in 2021? Certainly. Has it improved sufficiently to warrant for a WP:GNG? Unclear - leaning on a negative. Article seems to be reference bombed with sources either with trivial mentions, unreputable sources or run-off-the-mill youtuber reporting. nearlyevil665 17:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Vaush appearing in Newsweek and Reuters articles over his clash with JK Rowling could qualify as WP:1E - none of these sources seem to have significant coverage of him either way, they are mostly about how JK Rowling reacted and other text unrelated to establishing coverage on Vaush specifically. I'd be careful assuming notability as some editors have argued here based on the fact that Vaush's name appeared in the title of an article, instead I'd suggest looking into the depth of the actual content.

Keep He is a major part of BreadTube and there are other BreadTube figures with articles here on Wikipedia— Alecisbored111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Revising my argument in light of further consideration. Vaush is clearly notable per WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.

There is, first of all, more than enough reliable third party material to compose an article, as the existing reference list attests. This includes journalism by The Independent in which Vaush's career features as one of the main subjects; and coverage of online culture in which Vaush is obligatorily included alongside figures Wikipedia has deemed notable, e.g. coverage of the banning of Hasan Piker, Newsweek's coverage of a controversy involving JK Rowling, and coverage of Vaush's publicized debate with Charlie Kirk on the Tim Pool Show by The Focus. None of these constitute "triviality"; this isn't "Bill Clinton's high school jazz band" per the example in WP:GNG. Rather, in all instances the authors describe in relevant terms Vaush's political views and media presence.

Secondly, with the caveat that this is of course relative to other figures in his field, Vaush falls under the first criterion of WP:CREATIVE: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers." Within the media sphere, the capacity to appear equally alongside or to host other figures is a de facto signifier of relative notability. Tucker Carlson, for example, would never appear for interview on a small podcast; but a small podcaster could be interviewed by Tucker Carlson. Figures such as Charlie Kirk and Jordan Peterson will not, as a rule, publicly debate relatively unheard-of individuals, which is why, for example, Jordan Peterson and his agent chose to approach Slavoj Zizek, an extremely reputable academic, for his first debate versus a leftist. As a matter of record, Vaush's channel has hosted conversations with Kyle Kulinski [1] and Ana Kasparian [2]—among several others—and he has participated in a highly publicized debate with Charlie Kirk, as referenced earlier. With this in mind, the idea that Vaush is significantly less notable than those who are clearly within his professional reach, who have Wikipedia articles themselves, is ludicrous.

(Side note: I'm using WP:CREATIVE here because WP:ENTERTAINER is clearly inapplicable to much of modern online media. By its standards, a majority of very famous YouTubers and Twitch streamers would be non-notable as they have not played major roles in "multiple" media productions, since they are largely young individuals whose careers are encapsulated by a single source of content. These guidelines could use an update for modern times; until then we are of course obligated to use common sense per WP:IAR.)

It is also worth noting that Vaush's two YouTube channels currently garner more views per week than those of a directly comparable figure such as Destiny. Vaush's channels also have greater cumulative views—more than two times, in fact—than those of colleagues such as Abigail Thorn, ContraPoints, and Hbomberguy, who also have Wikipedia articles. According to WP:GNG, this should be a factor in consideration.

Regarding another editor's comments that the article has been "source-bombed" or possibly falls under WP:1E: An objective look at the references clearly disproves this. Vaush has been noted for more than one event. The cited coverage, as previously established, is not trivial on Wikipedia's terms. And the use of WP:SPS ("run-of-the-mill YouTuber reporting") is appropriate per WP:ABOUTSELF.

Ultimately, the the threshold for deletion is intrinsically subjective. However, what is not subjective is consistency; in fact, consistency of application is the only yardstick we have in this situation, ensuring fairness and impartiality for what can often be contentious subject matter. If deletion would call into question the validity of the articles of similarly sized or similarly reported-on figures, such as Destiny, Thunderf00t, and no doubt countless others, then those in favor of deletion, based on their stated threshold for noteworthiness, must choose one of the following: accept a double standard, or bite the bullet and advocate for a major purge of mid-sized media figures and even moderately recognized creatives etc. who have probably received similar levels of coverage. In the interest of fairness and practicality, I do not see the case for deletion. Humenni (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Multiple reliable sources give non-trivial mentions to Vaush. The Independent article is the best example of a high quality source giving in-depth coverage, but there is also the Washington Post which devotes a few paragraphs to him and quotes him in their article, the two Daily Dot sources for which he is the subject, and Knowles 2021 which has a paragraph on him as well as a few other mentions. The Focus and Newsweek articles may be more borderline sources, but they also give him in depth coverage which I think gives further support to notability. Overall, there is enough significant coverage to provide sufficient content for an adequate article without the need for original research. Therefore, I believe he meets GNG. However, if consensus ends up supporting the conclusion that Vaush doesn't meet GNG, then I believe the article should at least be converted into a draft as it definitely has potential and Vaush is likely to receive even more coverage in the future. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I never really like the concept of something being "noteworthy" enough to be on the encyclopedia of everything, but if the coverage of Vaush by Newsweek and Reuters lately hasn't cemented the fact that Vaush is a major voice in his field, I honestly am not sure that Wikipedia should be talking about any political YouTuber.––Nintenfreak (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it is undeniably the case, as others have pointed out above, that this discussion has been brigaded, and that many !votes in favour of keep are flawed and not based on policy or objective evidence of sourcing. Nonetheless, I believe that the assertion that no policy or source-based arguments have been provided in support of keep, as some have claimed, is quite uncharitable. A number of sources do exist, as listed in the article, and a number of these devote a paragraph or more to coverage of Vaush. The problem is then in identifying which are high enough quality sources and which of these genuinely do give in-depth coverage and not just a paragraph of fluff for example. I believe there are actually quite a few sources of adequate quality that give non-trivial mentions to Vaush, and gave them in my vote, with specific reference to the quality of the sources and the depth to which they cover him. I'd also like to point out that Humenni argues that Vaush passes WP:NCREATIVE, which is also clearly a policy-based argument. Hopefully the closer will consider the strongest arguments for keep rather than looking over the clear brigading and concluding that there is no evidence of notability from the worst arguments in favour of keep. Alduin2000 (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC) — Minor edits for clarity made at 13:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC). The diff can be viewed here.[reply]
  • Delete, WP:SIGCOV is not met, as noted by Piotrus. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and simply being mentioned in some sources is not a valid reason to keep. Crossroads -talk- 01:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to find even one reliable source that is significantly about him. Also, many of the (non-youtube) sources in the article don't seem to even mention him, and a few name-check him, but that's it. The twitter exchange with JK Rowling is not enough to establish notability, and is not substantially about this person. Lamona (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply and Keep - @Lamona Did you read this source from The Independent which was already cited heavily in Vaush's article? This article extensively focuses on the Breadtube community while citing Vaush as a prominent member of said community, discussing his content as a libertarian socialist YouTuber, his origins as a content creator inspired by streamer Destiny, his various political opinions and his incidents stemming from his expression of said opinions (such as his ban from Twitch "after proposing the US invade Israel in defence of Palestinians" and his reaction to it - "Vaush reflects on the indefinite ban with a degree of levity and detachment. He sees it as him 'going too far criticising Israeli imperialism'. Though Twitch was previously his preferred medium, Vaush continues to gain viewers on YouTube."). A basic Ctrl+F search reveals that Vaush is cited 20 times throughout the article which constitutes to multiple paragraphs; specifically, about 800 words were dedicated solely to explaining who he is and his role in the Breadtube community. While the article does contain quotes directly from him, it still qualifies as a secondary source because the quotes directly from him are not only synthesized and analyzed, but also serve as transformative from a primary source. Vaush obviously isn't affiliated with anyone from The Independent making this an independent source (badum-tiss), the coverage is from a secondary reliable source, and per WP:INTERVIEWS - "At the other end are interviews that show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography. An interview presented as investigative journalism of the sort we associate with 60 Minutes can be helpful. In these interviews, the interview material is often interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts... if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline." This qualifies as investigative journalism that contributes to notability per these reasons above. Not to mention, his ban from Twitch in late 2021 alongside Hasan Piker, the JK Rowling incident, his controversy of justifying the use of the N-word which reliable source outlet The Daily Dot covered (along with another Daily Dot source, and this book slash scholarly article which covers him in over 30 pages goes far beyond one event territory.
EDIT: For whatever reason my first response was reverted for being disruptive despite clearly arguing in favor of Keep per WP's policies and guidelines and only replying in good faith to what I initially perceived as a poor WP:BEFORE search. So I'll rewrite my final thoughts. Reflecting on the first AfD, this article should've never been deleted in the first place; the existence of The Independent source clearly established significant coverage alongside the Daily Dot sources written around the same time the article was first deleted. The new sources proposed here clearly prove that Vaush is notable per WP:BASIC, and seeing as how the editors in favor of delete haven't thoroughly evaluated the sources the "Keep" editors seems like something of concern that needs to be addressed moving forward with this AfD. Anyway, I've stated my thoughts on the matter; I have no intention of bludgeoning this to the ground. I suggest also evaluating Humenni and Alduin2000's responses as well; they make a convincing argument as to why this should be kept.
(This is once again PantheonRadiance replying from an IP address. I apologize for some of my previous statements appearing not to be in good faith.) 2601:204:D981:8130:41BE:9D0F:9D72:2373 (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)— 2601:204:D981:8130:41BE:9D0F:9D72:2373 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. I would hope for a source mainly about the man for my !vote to be stronger, but the man's opinions has been critique'd and responded to by professional journalists in the media, and he has been praised by two reputable academics for his optics (even if they did so for a single page in a journal). Additionally, his involvement with BreadTube, getting banned off Twitch as one of the few leftie streamers to do so, and his shit with J.K. Rowling has been the subject of reputable sources. Anyone interpreting any of this as just "trivial mentions" does not know how trivial mentions or what is trivia works. To quote WP:AVOID, which is an essay, "On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention." I think myself and a couple of the other Keep voters have made it more than clear the coverage is anything but non-trivial.
I will say this in the Delete side's defense, however. Certain parts of the article are too dependent on non-reputable newspapers college papers and uploads from Vaush that probably should not be there. Additionally, there is a lot of bad WP:GHITS arguments and WP:CANVASSING going on on the Keep side that is making it look bad, and an admin needs to get that resolved. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 16:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Am swayed by user:Alduin2000's points. Chumpih t 12:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's been way more than one event Vaush has been covered for, making WP:1E not applicable. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 23:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the sources don't specifically talk about Vaush (passing mentions only), but only his drama with J.K. Rowling. 180.194.127.148 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is disproven solely by the Independent article which puts Vaush in the context of his place in the broader BreadTube community, covering his beginnings in Destiny's community, the subsequent creation of his own stream and his philosophy concerning the presentation of his content, his debates with the alt-right, his banning from Twitch, his opposition to Bernie or Bust, and some of his other political beliefs. Even ignoring the Independent article, Vaush has been given coverage beyond a passing mention regarding multiple other events (controversy surrounding his use of the n-word, controversy surrounding his arguments about kink at pride, his second ban from Twitch, and his debate with Charlie Kirk). WP:1E arguments are clearly not applicable in this case, the only genuine argument to be settled here is whether or not he satisfies SIGCOV. Alduin2000 (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vaush_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1079819371"