Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zolbootv

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. Consensus of editors is that the sources presented here do not qualify as reliable or having significant coverage within them. Daniel (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zolbootv[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)

Out of the sources in the article, only 2 are not primary sources. One is a passing mention and another is an interview. Thus, this article does not pass WP:BIO. Spinixster (chat!) 13:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spinixster (chat!) 13:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why you are nominating it for deletion. If you find problems on it, just fix it or nominate it for draft. I have similar issue with another article. Peeople are helping me to improve it via suggestion or by sending it back to draft. Why so eager to delete something that you can fix it or suggest improvement? Gologmine (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply because the individual is not notable. No matter the quality of the page, if it's not notable, it will be deleted. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Spinixster (chat!) 14:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have takent this article as inspiration to create Zolbootv's article. Both of them are very identical in terms of refrences and and content. Gremix's article's content mostly comes from his interview. How come this article notable and Zolbootv is not? i am very confused. Gremix's article even passed the review. Or is it something other than that? I have checked Gremix's refrences and according to you, this article is also not notable. Gologmine (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of WP:BASIC being met. Article quality is irrelevant to this discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is enough media coverage of him. I simply did not provide any other unneccessary sources that is nothing to do with content of article. His mere presence on yutube is more than enough. Gologmine (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
according to WP:Entertainer the subject qualifies more than enough Gologmine (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.dorgio.mn/p/147350

https://www.urug.mn/news/13083

https://isee.mn/n/13349

https://www.busguichuud.com/13424/

https://tac.mn/article/132765

https://ontslog.com/entertainment/yellow-news/7632

https://ulstur.com/archives/26924

https://www.uchral.com/archives/45816

https://m.news.nate.com/view/20230916n10742?mid=m03&list=recent&cpcd=

I have excluded his video interviews. For the record I am providing these links only to prove that the subject gets enough media coverage to to be considered as a celebrity.Not saying these links provide legit information. His youtube presence is enourmous. He is definetly a notable person as much as other Youtubers around the world. I cant believe you are denying his notability. Gologmine (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"media coverage" is also irrelevant to notability. What matters is coverage in reliable sources. Of that list, only one source (urag.mn) is reliable; the rest are tabloid/gossip sites. The urag.mn source does not provide significant coverage of the article subject. You say that the subject qualifies for WP:ENTERTAINER "more than enough"—can you explain how? He has not "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", and he has not "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
define "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". I assume he qualifies other productions?

https://isee.mn/n/13349 provides significant coverage.

https://ulstur.com/archives/26924 provides significant coverage. both of them are reliable news agency.

Dorgio.mn is realiable news agency. the rest are tobloid i agree with that. As I said these list of links is just to prove my point that he is a celebrity. He does entertainment videos on his youtube channel on a daily basis, which is watched by millions of people. I do understand that interviews dont fall into independent sources. I tottally understand that if the contents of the article should be reworked. But i dont understand why it should be deleted. I suggest you do some reasearch, before you judge book by cover as you do many times before. Gologmine (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://m.news.nate.com/view/20230916n10742?mid=m03&list=recent&cpcd= even korean news mention him in the article. this is not a tabloid. Gologmine (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
these list of links is just to prove my point that he is a celebrity Excellent, but completely irrelevant. Please prove that he meets WP:N instead.

I do understand that interviews dont fall into independent sources. so why have you put forward the interviews https://isee.mn/n/13349, https://ulstur.com/archives/26924 and https://m.news.nate.com/view/20230916n10742?mid=m03&list=recent&cpcd= as examples of reliable sources??? You are actively contradicting yourself. Please try and "do some research" that is more than googling a word and copy-pasting a list of links!

And no, dorgio.mn is not a reliable news agency. 30 seconds of searching shows the following tabloid articles on their website: [1], [2], [3], [4].

A repeat, just to emphasise. It does not matter how popular he is, it does not matter if you think he is a "celebrity", it does not matter if millions watch his vidoes, it does not matter if his YouTube presence is enormous. All that matters is Wikipedia's notability policy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you dont seem to udnerstand my point.

1. less than 10 seconds I found this this articles on dorgio. In 30 seconds I will find 300 more. [1] [2] [5] [4] [5] How come these articles are tabloid? If you given a time to research the news website little bit more, this news website has multiple news section. You deliberatly found tabloid articles from tabloid article section and trying to prove that DORGIO.MN is tabloid news outlet? Just because it has tabloid article sections? if you want I can send 300 more of their articles from various sections. Contents of those articles are completely reliable, which matches to other news outlets.I was trying to prove a point that you have abias towads dorgio.mn or any similar unpopular news sources, which I noticed a long ago.

2. Please try and "do some research" that is more than googling a word and copy-pasting a list of links! Why are you assuming that I am reasearching only on google? If it were possbile to reach out my sources any other way I would have done that already. And this discussion is not about me or how I do things.

3. I put forwards those interviews to support my argument that he is notable. If you carefully read those contents in that links, they are not entirely about interview. At least that tiny amount of secondary source information would fit into independent sources category, I think. Before the interview begins, author noted that Zolboo is a famous youtuber.

4.It is a fact that he is a celebrity. it matters millions watch his videos. Aside from significant coverage, he fits into all the other categories very well.

5. On this significant coverga issue, my another question rises. I have prepared 2 examples regarding this matter. How these two articles right to exist on Wikipedia Germix and Bayantsagaan? Gremix is very identical article to Zolbootv in terms of content and refrences, still I did pass the review and no one has made a complaint. His refrences are mainly comes from interview and videos just like Zolbootv. Whats left of his refrences only hightlights his few achievments nothing more. Bayantsagaan is a legaly recognized place that deserves its own article. But how come article like this without any sufficient coverage get a right to exist. If I delete Zolbootv's unfit sources, it would look like Bayantsagaan article. Gologmine (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 06:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. None of the above references list above would meet the test of quality independent sources. There is no WP:SIGCOV on this person in any quality newspaper/media outlet even in their own country as far as I can see. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:16, 30 December 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.