Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperWolf (5th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Source analyses are convincing. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SSSniperWolf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

SSSniperWolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

tagged for notability since "january 2020". the article was created in april 2023, but we won't go there.

ignoring all the primary sources (stuff that doesn't amount to anything for notability), the first source is an interview (not independent), third comes from a gossipy site, fourth is a "forbes profile", which is a joke, eighth and ninth literally just mentions the name, and tenth is reporting on vapid gossip.

a google search turns up nothing but crap like a dexerto source (unreliable), whatever the hell this is, and some new york times article about cultural appropriation that mentions her for some reason.

i note here that there was a previous afd that resulted in delete, but this article was recreated for some reason.

edit: turns out this is the third afd, but it wasn't detected due to the second afd having a lowercase w for some reason. update: this is the fifth afd. this is madness.

ltbdl (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC) (edited 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC), 06:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC))[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The above ignores that this article was kept here, also I found [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. Clearly notable, literally has over 30000000 subsrcibers, many sources like in ongoing high profile career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i'll prepare a response to this later. copying your argument from the last afd is not a very convincing argument... ltbdl (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Tuko piece looks really spammy - probably not reliable. The Vogue piece is an interview, not independent. Win.gg should not be used for BLP information per this discussion. The Tubefilter piece is mostly an interview, with surface-level analysis of her view counts/subscribers. SVG.com is an unreliable source per [10]. The AZcentral piece is only good source for notability amonst 9 listed. Having a large number of subscriber count, while impressive, does not automatically grant notability. The fact that the article is kept before is irrelevant as consensus can change at a later date. Because of all this, I find this argument very weak. Ca talk to me! 13:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest looking for reliable sources that come under the topic of video games. I found two sources stating that she had taken part in two different tournament events and have added them to the article. 1keyhole (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ca: As I mentioned in the previous nomination, Tuko is an independent news source based in Kenya. It's about on par with The Guardian. The article does not seem to pull from any specific interviews and looks more like a reporter's intuition to pull from other sources. Conyo14 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a WP:BFDI situation where there should be good sources, but there simply isn't. Ca talk to me! 00:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Frankly there might be enough partials to make an article, but in its current condition, it is not. Even so, I find that only Tuko is a good enough article. I prefer to have three good sources. Conyo14 (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Boilerplate delsort notices
  • Keep - listed multiple times by the verge, business insider, etc as one the top 30 youtube creators 1keyhole (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @1keyhole: that doesn't contribute squat to notability. ltbdl (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It also seems to be wrong. Socialblade puts the top 100 most subscribed YouTube channel at 37 million subscribers (above the subject's subscriber count), and YouTubers.me puts her at 122. That said, a number of channels on those lists may not fall under "content creator" here. Cortador (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've !voted !delete less than 2 months ago, I can't see how notability has changed in those two months... Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. i voted delete last(?) nomination and looking back through the article, all of the previous issues i had are still there. nothing has happened in that time period to increase notability even a little bit. once again, internet points ≠ notability. DrowssapSMM (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article seems to be built on sources that are primary, unreliable, or only tangentially mention the subject. And "But she has so many subscribers" isn't a reliable source. Cortador (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am mostly commenting here just to cast my vote. Other commenters have already provided adequate sources from news and business websites, as well as good arguments for why this article should stay. She is among the most popular Youtubers to have ever existed -she is very notable. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if, should this article be deleted, a new one should pop up soon after, made by a fan again. Safyrr 21:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @safyrr: so if i'm understanding you correctly, we should keep this just because a new one should pop up soon after, made by a fan again? ltbdl (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt No sign of notability and it's honestly impressive how this article got recreated and not immediately deleted, when it sources crap like "SSSniperWolf Twitter Bio". NegativeMP1 23:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At min she meets WP:BASIC because there is so much coverage on her.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Some of these may not be considered too indepth, but based on WP:BASIC if someone has massive coverage they could be combined to show notability. BTW, my 9-year-old niece is watching her YouTube videos all the time and she is somewhat of a celebrity to many kids and teenagers. People also nominated Kim Kardashians's page for deletion many times. Wikipedia needs to have pages for popular people. This is one of the purposes of Wikipedia, so some of you need to take it easy a little. Hkkingg (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: She has also won Kid's Choice Awards (Gamer of the year) in 2019 and 2020 based on these articles [Kids' Choice Awards 2020:], [ Sssniperwolf Kids Choice Awards... ], so she possibly meets WP:ANYBIO as well. Hkkingg (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to make the case that any of the first three are significant enough as a source? Or would you consider them to be partial? I'm asking as this would push forward my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not enough to meet BASIC. Current consensus as described in WP:VG/S is that Game Rant (1) shouldn't be used in biographies of living persons, Dexerto (2,4,5) is unreliable, Sportskeeda (3,7) is unreliable, and that SVG (8) is unreliable. This leaves us with two industry publications of unknown reliability (Win.gg and Tubefilter), Nickiswift which is a tabloid gossip website (WP:NOTGOSSIP), and AZcentral which is likely the only reliable source of the lot. Add up everything reliable, and there likely isn't even enough SIGCOV to justify a standalone article about the subject having a YouTube channel and a house for sale. Pilaz (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be a work still in progress. I removed the Notability tag, which was there from a previous redirect to this page - completely irrelevant. I'm voting "keep", because looking at the history shows so many different versions and redirects of whatever this page started out as, or evolved to, that I don't think that the creations of this article has reached its final phase yet. Let it play out and see how it improves. — Maile (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hkkingg, WP:BASIC has clearly been met. Also listed by Yahoo Finance as one of the 30 richest Youtubers here. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 03:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - she's also received coverage by Business Insider India as being one of the 30 most popular content creators on YouTube here. The Irish Mirror lists her as the 2nd-highest earning Youtube gamer here. Prolific North (admittedly not sure about RS status for this one, but seems reliable) notes she's the only female streamer in the top 10 here. She's also mentioned in the discussion of streamers in Influencers and Creators: Business, Culture and Practice (Kozinets, Gretzel, Gambetti) though I'm not sure exactly how much, as Google Books isn't giving me a complete preview. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @satellizer: being rich ≠ notable. ltbdl (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being rich does not equal famous (e.g. why we don't have every Walton family member). However, notability can be met with WP:BASIC. There are a lot of partials. Personally, I'd rather see two fully-supporting sources to !vote keep. Right now, like the other nomination, I'm undecided. However, the Tuko article is a covered source. So, if anyone wants to provide a reasonable source, then sure I'll !vote keep. In the meantime, remember that AfD is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes being wealthy does not equal notability in and of itself, but if she's received RS coverage for being one of the 30 most successful people on what is the world's second-largest website, surely that's an indicator of notability. Same with having received RS coverage for winning the Kid's Choice Awards (Gamer of the Year) twice in a row. I'm getting strong WP:IDONTLIKEIT vibes from the nom statement and the badgering of keep !voters. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: already voted on this, but just noticed that the number of deletion nominations is quintuple the amount of reliable sources, which probably doesn't mean anything, but still... interesting. DrowssapSMM (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that notability doesn't seem to be there. I'm weighing in now only to add that the "awards" she seems to have won seem cosmetic at best...it appears that the award itself has only been given twice, and both times it went to SSSniperWolf. One of the references in this article ("Sssniperwolf Kids Choice Awards Win Called Out by KEEMSTAR") even points out how dubious it is. ChristianCanCook (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete and salt (all variations of the name, as needed). Being rich does not equate to notability; being popular does not equate to notability. The sources presented fail to show GNG/SIGCOV, and as ChristianCanCook pointed out, the awards she has won are... questionable. Additionally, I am... disappointed, by Safyrr's argument that we should keep this article just because a fan will remake it if deleted again. No. That is what salting is for. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per User:SilverTiger12's comments above. Poor sources, and she doesn't seem to have significant coverage. Maybe one day she'll be notable enough for an article but this seems like a WP:TOOSOON case. --My Pants Metal (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: the sources in the article and those brought forward by Hkkingg are not reliable (most of which are discussed in detail at WP:VG/S and WP:RSN) and/or do not provide significant coverage, leading to WP:BASIC not being met. Tuko seems to just aggregate data from elsewhere without further analysis (analysis of primary sources is something we would expect from a reliable secondary source, per WP:SECONDARY), and I concur with Ca in that the only reliable source available at this time is AZCentral, whose coverage of SSSniperWolf I find really limited (house being bought and sold and subscriber numbers are pretty mundane stuff). The awards/nominations are also too minor to justify keeping this article solely on ANYBIO. Given that it's the 5th time we get a recreation, maybe it's time we apply some WP:SALT to make sure that if this article gets recreated, it is done so in compliance with the existing policies and guidelines. Pilaz (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree wp:basic has been met she has taken part in many events with other celebrities and I provided reliable sources.
    • Game Informer
    • ploygon
    • VentureBeat
    If you check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources you will see there listed. 1keyhole (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking part in events with other celebrities doesn't make one notable by default, see WP:NOTINHERITED.
    And at the cost of repeating myself, simply being reliable isn't enough: Game Informer, Polygon and VentureBeat do not provide significant coverage, which doesn't help the subject of this article meet WP:BASIC. Pilaz (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to my previous comment, Satellizer proposed four other sources: GoBankingRates (Yahoo News) seems to simply compile basic information from elsewhere, and I don't think it's really the kind of source we're looking for to gauge reliability, since we're striving to get some sort of analysis per WP:SECONDARY; the same happens with Business Insider India; the Irish Mirror piece only mentions her once, hence not SIGCOV; and while ProlificNorth seems to be a digital advertising industry-oriented outlet with some journalists on its payroll, I can't quite find an editorial policy, so I am also not sure we can slap the RS tag on them. Pilaz (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Really poor quality sources being suggested here. Dexerto, Sportskeeda, and SVG are all unreilable per WP:VG/RS. Gamerant cannot be used to indicate notability. Some of the other commenters already demonstrated how bad the other sources are. Delete and salt, please. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true, but there are other sources that are actual reliable sources.
    • Game Informer
    • ploygon
    • VentureBeat
    1keyhole (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ex. the Polygon article states "Here's everyone playing in Epic's major Fortnite E3 tournament". Looking at the title itself and after seeing the content, it appears that they didn't talked about SSSniperwolf directly or mainly, so it is not a sogcov and does not help with notability. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per rationales above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete' This editor has no understanding of what a constitutes a good source. Seems to be WP:CIR issue here. scope creepTalk 20:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Scope_creep Which editor? Also, would anyone here be willing to consider a draftify and salt as opposed to a full deletion? Not all of the sources (but quite a lot of them) are bad, and incubating it into draftspace until editors are fully confident she meets GNG seems like a fairly suitable compromise. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It feels like this YouTuber has been popular for a while now. If she hasn't gotten proper sourcing by now, will she ever? Conyo14 (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball; maybe somehow and sometime in the future, someone will write a reliable secondary source about her for something she does. But it's not like there's nothing in the article worth salvaging. The AZ Central source seems like reliable SIGCOV, and the Business Insider and Yahoo sources could flesh out parts of the article too. Also, the Forbes profile seems to list her as a recipient of the 30 Under 30 award which is a pretty credible claim of significance - at least much more than the Kids Choice Award. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The sources to argue it being kept are either unreliable, promotional, or not independent of the subject as demonstrated by Pilaz.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The debate consists of keep voters listing sources, and then delete voters saying those sources are bad or unreliable. I think there is a fundamental difference in how the voters are interpreting WP:GNG. Based on how there are so many sources given, and then all of them are dismissed for some reason or another, it seems like the vast majority of sources are unreliable, which means you can make the same argument to show that any youtuber is not notable. 70.27.1.63 (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and then all of them are dismissed for some reason or another, it seems like the vast majority of sources are unreliable, which means you can make the same argument to show that any youtuber is not notable
    no, the argument is that the vast majority of sources for this specific youtuber are unreliable. ltbdl (talk) 03:05, 17 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SSSniperWolf_(5th_nomination)&oldid=1182139643"