Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaiden Animations (3rd 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 Move to draft--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaiden Animations[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)

Speedy was removed with the rationale "as has content related to multiple events post the AFD". However, there was no real in-depth coverage since the last AfD. The first new source, from The Daily Star, is a shared sentence about her. The second is from Animation Magazine, and is a very brief mention. The same with the new refs from Market Insider, WatMag, and TenEighty. More simple mentions occur in News.com.au, Billboard, Streamys, Variety, Heavy, and Metro. There were a couple of YouTube additions as well, which isn't a RS. The only new source which was more than a mere mention was the second source from TenEighty, which is about a health care panel she sat on. However, that's more of an interview, and not really in-depth about her, and as an interview, it's a primary source, and doesn't go to notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or maybe make it into a draft - Jaiden is still relevant/notable being involved in the 2017 and 2018 YouTube Rewind and working with other YouTubers. The article just needs some work. Also, how does David Brown (boyinaband) meet notability but Jaiden doesn't? Just doesn't make sense to me. Within the next few days I can find more sources and improve the article. I'll tag @Atlantic306: since he removed the deletion tag and gave a reason for it. If it isn't ready, we could make it into a draft, work on it, and make it an article when it is ready. Might just be a case of WP:too soon but if she isn't notable enough now she might be notable enough in the future. Deleting it just doesn't seem like the best option when she is a pretty big YouTuber.Bowling is life (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without considering the article sources, a new search for sources finds these:

Metro "Inside the world of Jaiden Animations: The animator who hid PewDiePie memes in YouTube Rewind"
A mention in People and
a mention in the book "YouTubers: How YouTube shook up TV and created a new generation of stars".

All in all, there is not a heck of a lot here, based on a fresh search. Even considering the article sources, which are largely passing mentions and lists, the Metro article above is the only in-depth overage I can find. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep, per reasons listed above - she's an extremely prominent animator on YouTube (who frequently collaborates with other notable individuals), she's gotten coverage on her work on body positivity, she's gotten coverage on her bulimia-and-anorexia-related music collaboration, she's gotten coverage on her featuring in YouTube's official YouTube Rewind series and the controversial YouTube Rewind 2018 situation, and she's gotten coverage on her animations which helped popularize a genre, etc. She's just as notable (if no more so) than many other fellow YouTubers (many of whom she's collaborated with) who have articles. (Wikipedia:Women in Red doesn't hurt the situation either.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being popular on Youtube means nothing. For notability we need in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Please show us the "coverage".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what ThatMontrealIP said, whataboutism really isn't a good argument (WP:WAX). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, maybe make it into a draft, or allow time for improvement~~ striking duplicate !vote - Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC) It is hard to find sources for a lot of YouTuber's. This it the case for TheOdd1sOut, Alex Clark, and David Brown but they have Wikipedia articles and all of these articles are pretty weak. Jaiden had about the same amount of coverage in sources as these YouTubers mentioned and sometimes more. We should either turn this article into a draft or allow time for improvement instead of straight up deleteing it. If the TheOdd1sOut, Alex Clark, and David Brown can have articles, I don't see why Jaiden can't. I am planning on working on this article within the next week when I have time and encourage others to do as well. @ThatMontrealIP: In terms of examples of coverage, she was in both 2017 and 2018 YouTube rewind. Her part in 2018 YouTube rewind was one of the most talked about parts. Their was even covered by BBC News. One of her tweets from 2017 was covered by media outlets. She did a song called "Empty" with David Brown. Jaiden was in MrBeast's $200,000 YouTuber Battle Royale video. All of this info is supported by sources in the article. If you think more info and sources are needed, than give editors some time to add some more. Bowling is life (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if there's no consensus to Keep (and "Keep" doesn't seem like a likely outcome at this point), it should probably be draftified so more work can be done on sources and stuff. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, unfortunately none of the keep !votes above is based on policy, but rather mostly WP:OSE or WP:ILIKEIT. It could be converted to a draft, but it's already been deleted twice.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there just isn't enough coverage to pass WP:BASIC. The mere mentions here and there really can't verify any details. While I understand that she may be popular, articles aren't created based on popularity. Handoto (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nominator. Should not have been recreated. Also potentially violates WP:PROMO. Since this has popped up three times, I think it should need to go through draft space before it's created again. SportingFlyer T·C 20:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- While I get the "draftify" reasoning (which I think should happen if there's no consensus to Keep), I don't believe this violates WP:PROMO, as it doesn't seem any editors are associated with the subject in any way. I think there's just a lot of people who rightfully believe she's notable enough for a page (that's all, it seems). Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a difference between WP:PROMO and WP:COI. A page can be promotional in tone without there being a conflict of interest. SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as there are some references found such as the Metro that suggest she may be notable in the medium term but not ready for mainspace at this time, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft per above. Just one more secondary indep reliable source is all it will take to reach WP:GNG. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft per above. We should just turn the article into a draft, work on it, and publish once major improvements have been made and it meets WP:GNG. Also, I am the one who recreated the article. I am not promoting her nor am I associated with her. If there is anything in the article that violates WP:PROMO, we can fix it when the article is turned into a draft. Bowling is life (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want the article to be draftified, you should strike your "keep or maybe draft" vote at the top of this discussion. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @IntoThinAir: So I can just move my vote to the top? Bowling is life (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2019 (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.