Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dope As Yola

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dope As Yola[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)

Non-notable artist. Does not have coverage under WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Recreated after draftification — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, United States of America, and California. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This seems to come down to if someone feels that a Forbes article is justification alone for a wikipedia page. The article is centered entirely on this content creator and Forbes is a major publication, but other than that there is little else (the "Significant Coverage" aspect of GNG has some room for interpretation here). A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  No, that Forbes article is just 80% quotes from the subject — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I believe most journalistic interviews are "80% quotes from the subject". A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is fine, their contributor blogs are not. Frankly, between those blogs and their "branded" overseas versions that are straight up paid placement, you need to look closely at anything coming from them. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like not enough reliable sources have covered this topic to write an encyclopedia article. Every source but one is a self-published YouTube video. 17:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elspea756 (talk • contribs)
Delete The Forbes material is a disclaimed contributor blog; see WP:FORBESCON. The rest is self-published YouTube videos and primary sources. I scanned for anything that looked even remotely notable and found only blogs, scrapers, and other junk sources. Note that I moved a previous incarnation of this article to draft at Draft:Dope As Yola, and had removed many junk sources. I left a message on the author's talk page about the type of sourcing needed for BLPs, but that does not appear to have worked. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have misinterpreted the YouTube channel and stories as fake or non-reliable as many other interviews have been used as citations or that I've at least seen. I think that in a completely realistic view, most of the things about a person are from their own perspective and what they say. Only exceptions are records or second hand views that also come from a person who isn't considered reliable as everything and everyone can see things from a different perspective. It seems unjust to remove the page I've created as the person/subject is the largest cannabis YouTuber and influencer there is. Some of the points you made are valid but I see that most things that you commented on are just opinions about the creator. Many pages on Wikipedia are cited from the persons own stories but it seems like something is wrong with the citations I made when others have much looser and un verified citations. CriminalResearcherFinland (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forbes seems ok-ish, but it's an interview mostly. We'd need a few other strong sources, which we don't have. Outside of PR stuff, this one line mention in Variety is all there is (that I can find) [1]. Delete for lack of RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potentially WP:TOOSOON - though I'm inclined to agree that a single contributor interview does not confer enough notability. While things like subscriber counts are not supposed to be used formally to assess notability, 1.5 million is additionally not 'that many' in 2023 where it would potentially contribute some level of inherent notability. A MINOTAUR (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication that notability is met per WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. The Forbes citation is poor for two reasons, it's basically an interview which is a primary source, the person talking about themself – we need independent , secondary reliable sources; secondly it a "generally unreliable" source per WP:RSP because it's WP:FORBESCON material. Netherzone (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a bit more than a passing mention in Variety, and in an online magazine called Herb.co, but totaling it all doesn't make me feel Araujo passes GNG. SWinxy (talk) 20:55, 19 August 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.