Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IShowSpeed (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 delete. There is no such thing as merge and delete - such a move

]

IShowSpeed

IShowSpeed (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)

IShowSpeed

This article is on a YouTube personality of questionable notability who obviously has a fan club in Wikipedia, but having a fan club does not establish notability. The article as written does not

, but that does not mean that Wikipedia should facilitate the promotion. There does not appear to be significant independent coverage.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Dexerto	Reads like a trade rag for streaming	Yes	Yes	?	No
2	Iheart.com	A blurb for a podcast	No	No	?	No
3	Newsbreak.com	Reads like another blurb	No	No	Yes?	No
4	Insider.com	Reads like a news story, but is quoting from source 1	Yes	Yes	Sometimes	No
5	Dexerto	Reads like a news feed story	Yes	Yes	?	No

An article on the subject has already been taken to

once and was draftified, and the comment was made that it should go through AFC. Instead this article was created again in article space. This version and the previous version are not the same, but there is still an attempt to bypass review and to push an article that is not ready for article space. This is the second AFD.

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We had just draftified this recently. I’ve rewritten the draft too and it’s in a much better condition than the current article which is full of BLP violations, unreliable sources (Newsbreak especially is a deprecated source) and unsourced info. Endorse ECP protections for this. SK2242 (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my previous rationale at
  WP:GNG established here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkl (talk • contribs) 15:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or merge with current draft per last AfD discussion. Jurta talk 19:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with current draft. There are multiple reliable sources from Kotaku, Dot Esports and NME which cover the recent Valorant controversy, and an Inven Global source from December 2021 present in the current draft, all of which are reliable per
  WP:RECENTISM, and while he may become more notable beyond these incidents as time passes, it's clearly too soon for him to have an article now. I suggest editors wait a couple months to see if any new sources arise for the draft as well. 2601:204:D981:8130:60E3:1A55:FC6F:8975 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment to
  game the system by creating two copies. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per 2601:204:D981:8130:60E3:1A55:FC6F:8975 and Jurta - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 17:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The Draft includes six citations, and 1 reference is kotaku.com about the valorant situation several times throughout the article. The original page includes around 13 citations and appears to be in better form, and one reference isn't utilized frequently throughout the article. The Draft has been turned down several times. It's still bizarre how you guys think it should be merged, but preach. Gameforall (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gameforall I didn't want to have to comment on this discussion again but after seeing this response I have to give my final two cents. First off, the mainspace version shouldn't have been recreated in the first place. The previous AfD already established that it should be draftified due to a lack of notability-granting sources, which was honestly the best-case scenario for e-celebs whose notability is challenged on Wikipedia. The idea was to encourage users to continue editing the draft while waiting a little while for sources that cover the individual's rise to fame in-depth beyond isolated incidents. As aforementioned, IShowSpeed is a clear example of recentism because of how quickly he rose to popularity faster than most news outlets could take note of him. However, popularity ≠ notability and isn't automatically grounds for keeping an article, regardless of how unusually fast someone garnered fame.

Second of all, the draft was declined because of most of the coverage focusing solely on the incident... which is exactly the same problem this mainspace version has. The new sources added to the article are of dubious reliability like Dexerto and The Focus, and besides the Lifehacker source which discusses some meme he was involved in, there isn't much to write a balanced article about him nor is there anything new this article offered that couldn't have been merged into the draft. The Inven Global source from December covered his Twitch ban which at best may be enough to surpass WP:BLP1E, but at worst may be another BLP violation entirely. I suggest merging the new RS from the article into the draft and reworking it in a more neutral view, which may be hard to do seeing as how these events are quite controversial anyways.

And finally, I cannot emphasize this enough.

Please do not recreate articles which have already been discussed thoroughly in an AfD without offering a new and strong case as to its notability

. You should have worked on improving the pre-existing draft and actively seeking out usable sources rather than deliberately rushing to get this article out into mainspace. There is no deadline on Wikipedia anyways, so there was no reason to do anything but take your time to work on the draft. If you and other editors work as hard as you can to finally get the draft accepted in the future, then that's great! If the draft never gets accepted, then perhaps it wasn't meant to be.

Also to clarify, I was the IP who voted Merge outside of my account. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A user, probably an ultra, came on to the IRC Help channel to try and canvas !votes - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 17:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whether this article is deleted or merged, I think this page title needs extended-confirmed protection or a new version of this article will just appear before the end of the month and we'll be back here for AfD 3. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the version in draft space, then salt the mainspace title until such time as the draft is accepted. Notability is a close question on this one - is he notable as a content creator, or just as a jerk who made some derogatory comments about women? Only time (to produce further sources) will tell. ~
  problem solving 14:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and salt per ONUnicorn. I'll add that the current article's quality is problematic enough in tone and unsourced statements that it might need some
  WP:TNT even if enough sources are collected to demonstrate notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Six sources, all of which appear unreliable and only cover him for minor occurrences in which he was engaged.--
  Apmh 01:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Insufficient and low-quality sourcing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment @

  The Tips of Apmh: As aforementioned, Kotaku, Dot Esports, NME, Inven Global and Insider are all considered reliable sources per community consensus, so the quality of sourcing isn't exactly the point. This is more along the lines of whether this is a case of BLP1E or not. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep The article was just introduced very, very recently. I recommend we give it time to be developed further before considering any deletion. Amerail (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amerail: We had just draftified this at AfD weeks ago. It should be developed in draftspace instead of the article being recreated, going against the 1st AfD entirely. SK2242 (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Don't see significant sourcing except Insider. Sachin.cba (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The mentioned individual is worthy enough to have a wikipedia pageArsenalfanguy (User talk:Arsenalfanguy|Arsenalfanguy|talk]] — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Speed is is worthy enough to have a wikipedia page. --JOestby (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Howso, if I may ask? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge and salt per above. Six
  non notable Youtuber and amateur rapper. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:53, 19 April 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.