Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PewDiePie

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PewDiePie[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

YouTube personality. There are sources in the article, but all but one of them are either self-published, from unreliable sources, or are just trivial mentions. A search of google just turns up a load of social networky stuff (facebook, twitter etc.) and a few other sources making a passing mention, but there are no sources providing detailed 3rd party commentary. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources referenced suffer from at least one of the following limitations, and most of them suffer from two or more of them: (1) only brief mention of him, (2) by him not about him, (3) an unreliable source (e.g. YouTube), (4) clearly promotion of him. Not one could remotely be regarded as significant coverage in a reliable 3rd party source. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PewDiePie has had the most subscribers gained on YouTube in the past 7, 14, 30 and 60 days on YouTube meaning that he has literally had the most subscribers gained for the past 2 months on YouTube (according to VidStatsX; something Deadline Hollywood trusts/uses) and has gained 10k-16k subscribers EVERY DAY since July 2. To address the references, the first reference doers not promote him, HAS full coverage on him, and is maybe unreliable to you but is a nationwide Swedish news site (that also featured him in the newspaper). The other references are, yes, not as good as the first one but do prove he was at EITB's Nonick and he did donate all cash winnings to the World Wildlife Fund. I do agree that the YouTube one is "unreliable" per say and the DreamHack ref does sort of just promote him. The Slender Commentary mention on Yam News is a very short mention, but a mention nonetheless that includes a link to his video of one the more popular (1.9 million views) game commentaries he's done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulbust (talk • contribs) 20:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...which would be fine, if the GNG criteria included "is really popular on youtube and gets loads of hits". I agree with you that the first source is from a reliable publisher and is full coverage, but it's blatant promotion. Even if it weren't, one source isn't enough to confer notability. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. is in WP:ENT. I do believe that 1.1 million is a large fan base, however that argument can be made for others above 1.1 million as well. However, what can not be said for those YouTubers is a "cult" following which PewDie does. Almost all of his subscribers are/call themselves "bros" in the comments. Another thing that cannot be said about those with PewDie's subscriber total is that he has been getting (as previously mentioned) 10k-16k SUBSCRIBERS a day since Jul 2. Also it's not blatant advertising when you do a column on a popular YouTuber and then add a link to one of their videos. Soulboost (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of the issue here is to remember that additional notability guidelines (such as WP:ENT) are not substitutes for the GNG. They simply outline a set of conditions which, if fulfilled, we assume denote notability. In this case, it would be fair to say he has a large fan base, and so we would assume that the subject passes GNG. However, after further research I discovered that he does not (not enough reliable sources). Ultimately, the GNG is paramount - if there aren't reliable sources, the subject isn't notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's lacks the multiple reliable sources to satisfy notability. As a recent phenomenon, I have no prejudice to later creation if he is more than a flash in the pan and garners further coverage in the future. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'notable on youtube' doesn't mean 'notable on wikipedia.' Creator may get a WP:REFUND if the subject goes on to get significant off-youtube coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's people much more important and that have more subscribers that don't have a Wikipedia page.Also the page seems to either be made by one of his obsessive fans or himself.The sources seem either unrelated to him or vaguely related to him. racker32 (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2012 (EST)

1. When I made this page he was the 81st most subscriber YouTuber. Now he is the 66th. Just because some have more subscribers than him does not mean that they are more popular per say, such as channels that are losing subscribers, or do not get over 10k subscribers a day.

2. I can assure you I am not PewDiePie. Also I'm not one of his "obsessed fans". Yeah, I'm a fan, but I just believe he deserves an article so I made one for him and added references. You gave two options for the sources:either unrelated to him or vaguely related to him. Expressen ref is completely about him. The dreamhack, YouTube, and Desura are also mostly about him. The Eitb ref, to a lesser extent, is also about him. Also the EITB ref was written on June 12, 2012 and in that it mentions he had over 700k subscribers at the time. A month and a few days later he has 1.157 million subscribers. That is an extremely rapid growth if you ask me. Soulboost (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop arguing about how popular he is on YouTube; it makes no difference whatsoever how many subscribers he has. The sources don't confer notability either - 1) the dreamhack source is just a brief promotion of an event, it's not in-depth coverage, 2) YouTube isn't a reliable source by which to judge notability, 3) the desura source is just a re-post of one of his YouTube videos, and 4) how you can say the EITB source is "about him" is beyond me, seeing as it only mentions him once. None of these sources constitutes significant coverage; this is not sufficient for the GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said the EITB is to a lesser extent about him because one of the paragraphs is about him. Soulboost (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given in my comment above about sources. At that time I didn't say "delete", because I was unsure about notability, and I thought sources might be available. I mentioned the problems with the sources, in the hope that doing so might indicate what needed to be done to improve sources. However, five days later, the only change to the sources has adding of more unsuitable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per JamesBWatson's commentary on sources. It takes more than an editors claims to "rapid Youtube growth" to meet the WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be significant coverages in reliable, third party sources for this person. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note I highly recommend that the five who voted delete check out the new Kotaku sources I added. Soulboost (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - One of them doesn't even mention him by name, and only seems to link to one of his videos, nothing Kotaku actually says in the article is even used, (or even useable) in the Wikipedia article as a reference. The other, while about him, is rather short, and doesn't really say anything other than "This guy plays scary games and puts videos about it on Youtube". Not really what I'd call significant coverage... Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 25 July 2012 (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.