Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Fosh (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 delete. but there is no clear consensus to SALT. That can be re-visited if folks find merit. @PixelMonki: please respect consensus, or you will be blocked. Star Mississippi 14:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Max Fosh[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)

First PRODed and then, about a year ago, deleted in a first AfD for failing WP:GNG and the same reasoning still stands. A recent stunt has received some coverage and seen the page re-created. Note high SPA/IP editing. I considered just reverting to the previous redirect, but a new discussion is perhaps in order. If we decide to re-delete, WP:SALTing is recommended given the edit warring the article has seen over the previous redirect. Bondegezou (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. Note that these articles have been written after the last AfD: [1] [2] [3] 0xDeadbeef 09:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Changed my vote; see below. 0xDeadbeef 00:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Fosh fails WP:NPOL (see previous AfD), but [4] at least says something about Fosh and seems like a useful reference, although most of the article isn't actually about either Fosh or Omilana. I have added it to the article. However, Insider is of uncertain reliability as per WP:RSP. Your other two references are about a specific prank and don't say much about Fosh. Stories about a prank come under WP:NOTNEWS: they do not suggest enduring notability. I'm not certain Indian Express meets WP:RS. Bondegezou (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see WP:RSP: Indian Express is reliable; The Insider article is also reliable because the article is under culture. Also note that WP:NPOL explicitly states that such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. 0xDeadbeef 11:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - My apologies: I missed the Indian Express listing at RSP. Bondegezou (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So he pulled a stunt. So a few papers noted it. Great. What is required for notability is "significant coverage"--this doesn't add up to that. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But He's got over one million subscribers, and 80+ million views. If that's not notable, what then is? His videos easily pull in a million + views per upload. Making him a footnote is his arguably less notable fathers wikipage is just weird, theres far more to him than just being his fathers son. PixelMonki (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NYOUTUBE discusses the relationship between the number of subscribers and whether Wikipedians decide an article is notable. Plenty of YouTubers with more subscribers don't have articles, or have had articles deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I think there is room for improvement here and don't think salting is warranted. – Starklinson 01:52 UTC
- After the article was deleted last time, it was changed to a redirect. The article was subsequently re-created ten times, nearly once a month on average, including by various short-lived accounts. That’s why I think, if this AfD concludes with a delete decision, I think we should SALT. Bondegezou (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources. The situation seems to me the same as it was last year: there isn't enough significant coverage of Fosh in reliable sources to write a decent article about him. As I raised last time, WP:NYOUTUBE tells us that in practice, editors involved in deletion debates consider that a YouTuber needs to meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT, and I don't think it's been demonstrated he meets either of them. He was also not elected mayor, so he doesn't meet WP:NPOL. In my nomination statement for the last AfD, I said that the RS material being put forward comprised routine election coverage and coverage of his YouTube hijinks, rather than coverage of Fosh himself. This remains the case for new material being put forward as potentially establishing notability, so I think the same problem applies. I don't think anything meaningful has changed, except the repeated SPA recreations which I think justify SALTing, which was something advocated by several contributors in the initial discussion last year too. Ralbegen (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting any inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Oppose SALTing. Fosh is probably WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:GNG but the stunt might merit its own article IMO. The stub does not have much content that needs to be draftified. Because Fosh could become notable in the future I do not think salting is necessary - SPAs should be dealt with individually and recreating the article in good faith should not be prevented. 0xDeadbeef 00:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First off all, there have now been added a lot of sources to back up the claims and make the article both useful, trustworthy and reliable sources. I believe him to be noteworthy enough to warrant a page of his own. His stunts regularly make headlines, not to mention his fairly large viewerbase. PixelMonki (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first 10 citations given in the article are to Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, a government database, YouTube again, a student news website, a local news website, another YouTube, a minor local news website, and a major local newspaper. I think the article has improved somewhat, but I still don't myself see material demonstrating enduring notability. His viewer base doesn't seem large enough by WP:NYOUTUBE standards (see the table at the bottom). Bondegezou (talk) 07:52, 6 June 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.