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 redirect to Jordan Peterson#YouTube channel and podcasts. Content remains undeleted in the history if anyone wants to merge something that's reliably sourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JordanPetersonVideos[edit]

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

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

While Jordan Peterson himself is notable, it doesn't seem like his YouTube account is by itself. The references given are about Peterson and not his videos. Some of the information could go into the main article but lots of it is just facts about what videos have been uploaded and when. ... discospinster talk 02:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few points, will place them here over a few edits. First, the content I placed in the Talk section of the page to contest deletion should be considered, it is copied here between these horizontal rules:
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... 1- this page follows the plans/ideals of wikipedia. 1.1- this page expands the nature of a work that is notable that is reaching its limit on its parent's page, not really a bold page creation; 2- it's extremely notable; 3- references/citations by reliable independent sources; 3- my track record on page creation shows efforts to maintain balance and neutral points of view; 4- I am unaffiliated with the topic but am a researcher; 4.1- I research educational and current cultural phenomena, social networks and this page represents a data point on my list of research topics; 5- I'm relatively anti-spam; 5.1- there are already spammers I've identified, involved in the ecosystem of the parent page and I'm interested to get involved in administration; --Tomacpace (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous defacers, and separately spammers, target the parent page, it is also within reason that the creation of this page would appear as undesirable (ergo promotional) from a defacer's perspective, and trigger a malicious report. Tomacpace (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While in currently early stage development, this page was modelled after similar pages that are Good Articles. References for the development of this page and others I edit: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Social_sciences_and_society#Education Better_Call_Saul_(season_2). A Better Call Saul season page could be said to be as unambiguously promotional to its target consumer base, equivalently promotional, as this page. Although it's a lot more developed (thus finding inspiration, focus, vision...) Tomacpace (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These above because the page was labeled as unambiguously spam. I responded to that and my answers have not been responded to.
The content within the parent page is subject to some editorial issues which lead to my considering the new page. Therein is minor gatekeeping. I don't argue strongly against that, because WP:NOTDEM, I respect gatekeeping if it's both neutral and quality (to exclusion of neither). Yet the observable gatekeeping finds non-neutral POV and has passively allowed spammer-backed content (documented), some forms of soft advocacy, and borderline vandalism. Having said that, I do not want to engage in long-form debates WP:BATTLEGROUND on wikipedia. Maybe in meta, but not in the nitpicking on word choice and attitudes and tone or perceived tones. Where quality is lacking, I'll build, and keep in mind WP:GOODFAITH. So considering the context of the parent article and Wikipedia:Summary_style and WP:PAGEDECIDE, I opted to branch some updates out of parent article according, with an eye based on grading and regular reference to the columns Criteria, Reader's experience, Editing suggestions in the rows Stub-Start-C in Wikipedia:Content_assessment#Grades and quality exemplars in Wikipedia:Good_articles/Social_sciences_and_society#Education and one example in particular, Better_Call_Saul_(season_2) (and still more other related GA).
I have longer content in draft but have not pushed it in the creation, it does not fall to original thought WP:NOTFORUM, but requires much additional work. Yet, as such with the nature of a series with seasons and episodes, or a network or channel, I also must keep in mind WP:NOTCATALOG and find the best path forward, and that's an extremely subjective thing to do. I don't want to submit MORE work at the initial creation event and then later find it deleted.
The nature of the content in the article as-such is, in my humble opinion, somewhere between start and C grade, and could be better formatted, however it's following a historical flow. I think this is where there's a good-faith concern that leads to a quick deletion consideration. But my first wiki page creation faced a similar speedy deletion event, and it was not deleted at the end. There was a subjective, unconscious bias in the mind of the advocate for deletion (acknowledged by that individual after-the-fact, the whole experience was friendly and supportive albeit challenging); I was grateful for the challenge and amiability and outcome. I think a deletion on an article where the notability is in question but could be voted yes, could benefit from contributors who are also familiar with the details, that's what the warning at the top of the page said when it was flagged for speedy deletion, something like "If you aren't the creator of this page but you think you can improve it, go ahead, and you can remove this notice". So the point is, I don't think the article is spam, the spam point hasn't been addressed by those who flagged/reported. This article is intended to be developed toward higher grade quality as much as possible, and my work on some other pages should (hopefully) attest to that.
There are plenty more reliable source citations in The Times in London, Toronto Star, etcetera, specifically on the topic of the youtube channel, and its specific contents, lots more to be said, lots continue to be said. Tomacpace (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007 You say it is blatantly promotional but you have not provided evidence for that, and I responded in good faith on the Contest Deletion point, which has not been responded to. This feels more like an inquisition. Tomacpace (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tone may be minimally prosaic in moments, which I can see but is based on hundreds of case examples of this in good quality articles I've studied. Mine is an entirely neutral point of view. I'm trying to maintain an openness to your point of view. Yet, without understandable responses to my points in Contest Deletion on the earlier Talk page, and a double-down on the "blatantly promotional" content, I am left empty handed for how to respond in good faith. Can you describe what was blatantly promotional about the whole article such that it forms a unified advertisement? I might be missing something. Tomacpace (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updating my vote to redirect per argument below. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
content is revised; total references count increased from 11 to 42 Tomacpace (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2021 (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.
More