Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sargon of Akkad (YouTube)

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. MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sargon of Akkad (YouTube)[edit]

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

Only sources are two opinion pieces, do not believe subject is notable PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this from Inside Higher Ed, which discusses his promotion of one of the many unremarkable conspiracies theory surrounding Gamergate, but it's not even close to enough. Many opinion pieces, but even most of those are lumping him in with Phil Mason and others as part of a list of anti-feminist or "anti-3rd-wave feminist" video bloggers. Not much else. Grayfell (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing here including for minimal notability, I would've considered PROD instead but I wouldn't be surprised if we'll need G4 later though. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: I did initially PROD the article, but it was disputed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Autarch (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' , enough coverage to make a decent article of: [1]. Jeff5102 (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what that link is supposed to prove. Accounting for Google's over-estimation of the number of hits they found, I see ~60 articles, few of which are reliable, and several of which are about ancient emperor. Having looked through those before !voting, many of these mentions are in the comment sections, which are totally useless for notability. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It provides more links than the google-news-searcher at the top of this discussion.
It appears SoA had insulted Jess Phillips a few days ago, which was covered by Redbrick and Telesur. This adds somewhat to his notability, I'd say.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the nominator was deleting sources [2] before claiming that the “only sources are two opinion pieces.” I must admit that the sources weren’t the best ones, but it showed notability of the subject of the article. Moreover, a Youtube-vid regarding SoA at the Rubin Report was deleted by the same user for being a “youtube-video,” [3] which is a too strict way to use WP:YT. If the lack of sources was the real problem, the conduct of this user would have been different, I think.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now, reinserting the youtube-vid of the confirmed, official channel of the Rubin Report is reverted by Peter because "The 'Rubin Report' youtube channel is, unfortunately, not a reliable source"[4] If the Rubin Report is not a reliable source for who appears on the Rubin Report, I do not know what would be reliable for that. I am suspecting bad faith here.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rubin Report is a redlink, and I'm fairly sure it's not even remotely reliable or notable. We don't mention every youtube video a person has appeared in by sourcing it to the youtube video in question. We would only mention a person has appeared in a youtube video if there were a reason for this to be notable (e.g. non youtube coverage). PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redlink? I checked it, and both the youtube-link of the show (in which Sargon was the main guest), as the link to the wikipage to the Rubin Report (in which Sargon is listed as guest) work fine with me. But that aside: don't switch the argument from reliability to notability. Jeff5102 (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin Report (as in your edit summary) is a redlink. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

..and edit summaries are more important than the contents of the article because...?Jeff5102 (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was explaining what I was talking about when I mentioned the redlink. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having been interviewed on a show is generally not in itself significant. Interviews are not independent sources, which limits their usefulness for notability. While this could potentially be used as a source for opinions or non-controversial details in the article, it does little to address the underlying problem. It's not like we have a lack of sources for Sargon's opinions, after all. The problem is not just a low Google hit-count, its a lack of usable independent sources, per WP:NBIO etc. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails either WP:BIO or WP:WEB. Take your pick! jps (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2016 (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.