Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boogie2988 (2nd nomination)

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. No further arguments for delete were set forth, and the nominator has also subsequently !voted keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie2988[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)

Fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How on earth does this fail GNG? A cursory Google search turned up loads of results. The Huffington Post and Kotaku "Story of Francis" piece cited in the article, as well as this Daily Dot profile I found clearly establish notability, IMO. That said, the sources need to be massively improved--too much YouTube and Twitter. Page was deleted in 2014 (barely, I might add and it really should have been relisted) and subject has clearly increased in notability since. He also won a notable award, as well. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 07:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The HuffPo article is a minor entertainment column [1] - I'm not even sure how much weight editors give these type of feel-good HuffPo stories for notability, since HuffPo has a bit of a reputation for churnalism ("he beams a fond face to his fan base."). Kotaku is basically a blog, I don't think we could even use it as RS for a BLP.Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also this discussion about Daily Dot for BLPs at RS/n leaves me with the impression that Daily Dot is not a preferred source for BLPs. Usually with awards we look for coverage of the award in mainstream press sources - in this case there is a mention in [2]. That is really the only chance this has of passing WP:ANYBIO, in which case the article would most likely have to be stubified. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leery of the ease with which you are dismissing these sources. WP:NEWSBLOG supports the inclusion of sources like the Kotaku and Daily Dot pieces, since those have pretty significant editorial oversight. I'm also wary of accepting a contested RSN from 4 years ago. I know this does not inherently establish notability, but the subject has over 4 million subscribers and is the first result when you type in "Boogie" on YouTube. Should be an indicator that the subject is notable as an internet personality. These sites don't just choose to cover every single Youtuber. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to defer to Drmies on the BLP sourcing issues. It definitely looks better after the cleanup.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seraphim System, this is maybe a good occasion for me to say that it is rare that I run through an article with such a blunt axe and it doesn't make me feel good. Plus, it's entirely possible that another admin thinks I revdeleted too freely, but in BLPs I'm always rather safe than sorry. It could be argued that the stuff in the article about the mother shouldn't have been revdeleted since apparently she died nine years ago, but it was pretty egregious and its only "evidence" was the subject's own YouTube video, so I find these things to be really unacceptable. There are, after all, still living relatives around, most likely. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I just went through and revdeleted maybe 400 edits from the history--all BLP violating stuff sourced to YouTube. This includes all kinds of allegations phrased in Wikipedia's voice, vandalism, etc. I restored an earlier version, a clean one. So you'll have to imagine the rest of the chatty content. I compared all the sources, and the only thing that's not in the current version (besides, of course, dozens of YouTube links) is this chatty bit of entertainment news, most of it pictures and other peoples' tweets in reaction to the "news". Unfortunately there are no reactions to those tweets, but hey. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person appears to fail to meet the standards outlined in the general notability guideline. I am having trouble finding reliable sources on this individual. Honestly, this article is simply unable to progress beyond Stub-Class. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but we don't delete articles just because they're stubs. It can be improved with the sources the article possesses, and I have no doubt it passes GNG (which is the chief complaint here) even as it is. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susmuffin, Etzedek is correct: the stub thing is not an argument for deletion. Some will never progress beyond stubs (think Olympic ice skaters of the 1890s), but that doesn't matter. There are some reliable sources right now, and the burden is on you to ponder, and discuss, whether that's enough in-depth coverage to make it pass the GNG--focus your thoughts on that. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (not like this is a shock). Subject is notable as an internet personality (4 million subs, first hit when you search "boogie" on youtube, sites like DD, HuffPost, Kotaku don't just write about any streamer) which the sources in the article assert, as they cover the subject in substantial detail. Subject also won a notable gaming industry award. This has turned into a cleanup/RS debate (even though nom hasn't provided any compelling argument for why the sources aren't reliable) which shouldn't be what AfD is used for. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 06:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I know the subscriber count and search hit that I mentioned don't establish prima facie notability, but they are pretty significant pointers in the right direction. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 06:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - (I find deplorable that the AfD nominator seems to have attempted to pull a fast one by not notifying the article creator, so I left the notification to Czar myself). I was initially wary when Czar recreated this article in late 2016 (I had closed the 2014 AfD as a (barely) delete, enforced with G4 for years eventually salted the page due to repeated recreation), but if you'll allow me to quote my own keep rationale from a JonTron AfD: "Plenty of sources about the person and the channel from well-established RSes like [Ars Technica, Kotaku, Engadget].... I think people dismiss Youtubers and a lot of "internet culture" things because they're not into it, but WP:GNG is the baseline for every article, regardless of topic, and this article's sourcing far exceeds the requirements of GNG, even though admitting that may displease some who would like to see Wikipedia cover more academic/scientific/historical topics and less pop-culture ones." If passing GNG is somehow not convincing enough, WP:CREATIVE #1 (an "important figure" having won a major award in the major industry award ceremony) or maybe even WP:ENTERTAINER #2 might be applicable (although these are just more-specific definitions of the overarching GNG pillar). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I really didnt notify the article creator that was a misclick, I rarely ever do that - I think maybe once or twice when prodding IP-created articles, but that's it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, sorry if it sounded like I assuming some malicious intent. I've notified Czar anyhow. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of this. Well said. This isn't all on Seraphim though, there was a discussion regarding this page on another talk page, where an editor (who doesn't seem to always exercise great judgement) said something along the lines of "this isn't notable." Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Keep as well, at this point. The BLP cleanup seems to have helped a lot, and I did not know about the award when I nominated this. I think the sources are borderline, but the award is sufficient to pass, imo. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Keep, speedily if the last "delete" argument is retracted (@Susmuffin) since the nominator has withdrawn. In its current state, the article sits around what I originally wrote, which I considered significant coverage at the time. I'm not usually for permastubs but this (1) represents a figure proportional to his notoriety—considering the short but brief articles written about him—with a brief introductory WP article that could not adequately merge into some parent article, and (2) has an opportunity to further expand in the individual's lifetime. Re: the award, for what it's worth, it was mentioned in both the original and bloated version of the article. Worth checking for those things and attempting to engage the page history before coming to AfD. czar 10:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super Keep - Boogie2988 is a very well-known YouTuber, with mainstream media interest and 4.5 million subscribers. One of the biggest reasons he is well-known is because he's been on YT since 2006 and has always been a decently large channel, and most remember him even from the earliest days of the platform. WikiProject YouTube rates his page as mid-importance, and I have gone and added the daily pageviews graph and it hovers between 500-1500/day in the last 30 days. It should not be such a stub. It's kind of insane that this is even being considered for deletion. Once this AfD is rightfully closed as keep, I will add an expand tag to this page. - Dmezh (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmezh: The user that originally raised a question of notability (not nominator) did the same thing for a page I created, which also turned out to be a speedy keep. Not the best exercise in judgement, imo. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 03:24, 20 August 2018 (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.