Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Wallis

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. In my view, this discussion has received adequate, guideline-based input to counter its relisting. This discussion has not led to a consensus for a particular action to be taken regarding the article. Also of note is that promotional content was asserted (in edit summaries) to have been removed from the article on 9 October 2020 (UTC) in these two edits: diff, diff. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Wallis[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)

YouTuber who falls below the WP:GNG. Speedy was placed but removed several times by IP editors. Taking it to AFD. Note that I have trimmed out rafts of self promotional material so you might want to check older versions. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: although I concur with nom insofar as Wallis doesn't appear to meet NWEB or GNG, the more pressing issue is promotionalism: the state of the Steve Wallis#Career section, even now, is above the G11 bar IMO. SITH (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: reading the notability guidelines this seems to be perfectly legitimate. Just because a few wikipedians haven't heard of this person doesn't mean they aren't notable. Yes, the article is a stub and needs work. (pratfall effect? that seems like a user making things up) but that's not the issue, the issue is notability and reading the linked guide there can be no doubt this individual qualifies as notable. Kode (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep: (It was I who nominated the article for speedy deletion.) Since then, and indeed since this AfD nomination, the article had been cleaned up and the referencing has been expanded a bit. On the one hand, this is still yet another YouTuber amongst many; on the other hand, the coverage in Vice (magazine) and CTV Television Network seems to minimally meet the letter of the law. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received significant coverage in reliable sources (Vice, Medium, CBC, CTVNews). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What is the potential coverage in reliable sources here?

1 is a Vice article that appears to be a human-interest story about "a YouTube rabbit hole" the author went down. I accept this as an RS, but only a weak one that would need ~~several~~ multiple others to constitute WP:BASIC.
2, on CTV.com, is another human-interest story, but only on a local news network for Edmonton. This appears to be a story on a local person getting 15 minutes of fame on the internet. I would only count this as an RS if it were on a national Canadian news network.
3, I wouldn't consider Miniflix (a subpublication of Medium) to be an RS either. See Wikipedia's list of perennial discussions, including 3 about Medium.
4, a 7-minute CBC radio story, on Radio Active with Adrienne Pan, seems too short and cursory to count as "significant coverage."

A brief search on Google News doesn't show any other RS, so per WP:BASIC, I vote to delete. If one more article comes out comparable to the Vice article, I'll be on the fence, and if two come out, I'll change my vote to keep. I also encourage editors to take a look at WP:NYOUTUBE. Jmill1806 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmill1806: what about WP:NYOUTUBE, exactly? Neither in the article nor in this AfD are we referring to YT as a primary source to establish notability. We're all discussing secondary sources, as we should be. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to use NYOUTUBE to make my case. I'm just pointing to it as a resource of potential interest to you and others. There are some interesting guidelines and a list of Youtuber AfDs. Jmill1806 (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the sources cited indicate that the subject is fairly notable but the author should do more to build on it. Northern Escapee (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not convinced that there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish that this YouTuber is particularly notable. Promotional tone. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:BASIC with the sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the articles in Vice and on CTV are both examples of SIGVOC in reliable sources, therefore meaning that he passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2020 (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.