Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keemstar

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keemstar[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)

Very much not my field, but I noticed this because of the BLP concerns. Quite apart from the subject, there are a number of living people referred to, many in uncomplimentary terms, based on sourcing which is not acceptable for BLP. It could be argued that any of them are public figures just as much as he is, but this doesnt in my opinion justify an article mainly featuring the negative interactions among them. Apart from being basically written as a BLP violation, sources seem utterly unsubstantial, and I think the appropriate rule is NOTTABLOID. Some of the sources merely cite him peripherally; many are basically promotional notices.

I do not know to what extent this is the standard of referencing and article writing in this subject; if most other articles are like this, we should reconsider how we deal with the field DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no doubt in my mind that Keemstar is notable; if you use YouTube or Twitter, you've probably heard of him before. However, the point about the sourcing is fair. For such a controversial individual, we need high quality sources, and the sources currently in the article are not high quality. It might be worth invoking WP:BLPDELETE here. Mlb96 (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is mainly negative because that is how he's mainly covered by the media. While the page does have sourcing issues, the more contentious material is supported by reliable sources. (Note that the daily beast article was written in 2018 when it was considered a generally reliable source) Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This has to be a joke nomination, or the OP has mistakenly applied a WP principle to this article. Keemstar easily fulfills WP:GNG and WP:BASIC with articles from outlets like The Daily Dot, The Daily Beast, Polygon, Dot Esports and Mashable significantly covering him, his content and his activities on YouTube. Yes, Keemstar's article is filled with an overly lengthy controversy section. But that's because Keem is easily one of the most controversial and notorious online Internet personalities, possibly of all time (as in, Internet historians years from now will remember him in a notorious light like a lot of dubious historical figures). As an online personality who covers such drama and gossip akin to someone like Perez Hilton, of course he would run into such controversies and have sources cover his dilemmas as well. In terms of sourcing, even reliable media outlets that aren't gossip-based have recognized him as such, and have covered the interactions he's had with other content creators, which of course one would reasonably infer as negative (without WP or reliable sources serving to imply such a conclusion). At worst, this is clearly an issue of due weight rather than any BLP violations. Because with someone like Keemstar, let's face it. There's only so much neutrality one may possess when writing articles from reliable sources which cover controversial figures. It's pretty hard to maintain neutrality and keep in line with the sources if those sources are along the lines of "Keemstar did X, he has been criticized for Y, someone accused Keemstar of Z" and so on. But that shouldn't degrade the notability of Keemstar nor the quality of Wikipedia. We're a website that simply summarizes research from reliable sources, and if reliable sources have significantly covered controversies like this, then we would have to include it. Full stop.

Also, this is PantheonRadiance typing this from another country. I randomly saw this today and just had to add my two cents to the discussion. 41.223.132.235 (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per PantheonRadiance. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC with many news outlets reporting on him. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My main concern was BLP; the reaction seems to be that he deserves it. As I said, I wanted to see what the WP standards are in this field. I seem to have received an answer. WP is made up quite a number of separate fields with their own practices; we each generally ask only that the peculiarities of our ts fields are respected, and I will not bother ourselves with the similarly peculiar others. At some point, though rarely, something stands out enough to concern the general communit DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 19 January 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.