Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaun (YouTuber) (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 no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun (YouTuber)[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)

Trying very hard to establish WP:GNG, but cannot find SIGCOV in multiple reliable secondary sources. Might be because it's hard to pick up sources because of the name. Either way, the sources already provided and found through WP:BEFORE are indicative of trivial mentions across various sources. nearlyevil 665 11:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 11:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I voted weak keep last time and his notability can't have fallen as notability is not temporary. So, is it more than a weak keep this time? As before, his pretty much unGoogleable name makes it very hard to say. The RS sources in the article do show more than mere passing mentions but it is mostly a paragraph here and a paragraph there, not a complete dedicated article in a solid RS source. Taken together, I think it is over the line for significant coverage but only just so I guess it is another weak keep from me. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles mentioning him are also likely to use the term "BreadTube", so I would suggest searching for "shaun" "breadtube" to anyone looking for WP:RS. aismallard (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Let's see if these links do us any good: --DanielRigal (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Findings:

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/11/the-art-of-left-wing-youtube/ (Not bad. He is in two paragraphs.)
https://www.diggitmagazine.com/articles/breadtube-right-wing-discourse (Just a mention but it is a rare one in that it is critical without being entirely deranged.)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/12/marxist-memes-tiktok-teens-radical-left (Just a passing mention)
Half a rusty bonus point for Caleb Maupin moaning about him in his latest screed and some other losers pushing a conspiracy theory that he is in the CIA but I guess that sort of nonsense is par for the course these days.

So, that's not much but I think the first one is definitely good. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per above. His channel is active and still growing, and I think it's likely future videos will generate more WP:RS coverage. aismallard (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Fails WP:GNG. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Blakesmith11 (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the sources found by DanielRigal. He also has coverage from what seems to not be, but not necessarily not a WP:RS per discussions in the RS archives: https://www.popdust.com/shaun-youtube-skull-2646164928.html TartarTorte 13:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is PopDust a reliable source? Here's a link for those interested, from 2014: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 175#Is PopDust a reliable source? nearlyevil 665 06:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue it's likely not, but not decidedly not a WP:RS there is that from the archives, but there's also this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 239#Reliability/quality of various websites where the albeit short discussion seems to in the way of: there's a lower bar for WP:RS for entertainment. I definitely would not use it as a source for contentious information and would defer to a better source if available, but it does seem like it's better than no source for the given context. Usage numbers are a horrible way of arguing for a source's reliability, but it does seem like there is some acceptance of popdust with being in just under 200 citations as of right now. TartarTorte 12:04, 31 March 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.