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 keep‎. The consideration regarding whether the subject has enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG was responded to with the source assessment, and arguments for deletion or merging did not properly respond to or refute the source assessment, so there is consensus for keeping here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twomad[edit]


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

Twomad (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)
Comment: Every third-party celebrity wiki I've found with a page on him ends up only citing his youtube and twitter accounts. There's a few articles on his SA accusations, but I wouldn't touch them as they haven't met WP:BLPCRIME. There's really not much to write with here. mooshberry->talk; 22:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean its a little bit of wishful thinking assuming that they're going to site high quality sources. There have been several mainstream and quality sources referencing him in the past, those could be used here. MarkJames1989 (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia, and it seems like I see a lot of articles with information I find of use for me getting nominated for deletion. I don't even care if there is one paragraph in an article because in my opinion, information is information, and Twomad is no exception. Carnival200 (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being new, you should probably give a read to WP:NOT andWP:BLP1E. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 14:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. There are plenty of times in which I've tried to find information on an individual with a deleted WP page -- only to look up the archived version and find exactly what I'm looking for. Perhaps WP should consider amending its deletion policy. Webmaster098 (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly WP isn't a fandom, so we can't just have barely notable information on here. I'm sure you both are aware that there is a couple youtube/social media specific fandom sites out there?
You both should spend some time looking at our notability guidelines, WP:WEB and WP:BIO both apply in this is situation. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 (Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 11:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does death. The fact that someone died does not suddenly make them noteworthy. Noteworthiness is achieved by what one does when they are alive. Granted - how someone died could be noteworthy in and of itself - but that too does not stand the test here. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refuting that argument, isn't it logical to argue that an individual with no degree of notability wouldn't be covered by publications and so using his alias. Assuming twomad had absolutely no degree of notability, why would publications use the title "YouTuber twomad dead at 23" and not "23-year-old found dead by overdose" Célestin Denis (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a subject is noteworthy by publications for one event doesn't immediately mean it's notable enough for Wikipedia. TappyTurtle (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Picard's Facepalm 1: If you actually read the first source, it's quite disingenuous to say he's only just mentioned. It's a clear example of WP:SIGCOV from before his death. And 2: that "wasn't notable when alive" argument isn't as convincing as you think it is. When it comes to people in creative fields especially, a person may get little if any coverage about their life and career until the moment after their death. In that coverage, reliable outlets may write about their life in such detail that it contributes to their notability beyond just a WP:BLP1E context. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was known for popularizing "zoom bombing" and his collaboration with online creator Belle Delphine. He had a decently large social media following particularly on Twitter and Youtube. NoahMusic2009 (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for the "zoom bombing" claim? sixtynine • whaddya want? • 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beemer69 See source table below. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who said that? How was his death notable, exactly? He apparently overdosed. ODing is not a notable method of death. Having a YT channel does not make one notable, either. Is WP to start creating articles for every Joe that has a YT channel and ODs? C'mon... --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 17:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge."
this should be WHY we keep it. wiki is meant to help people find info on topics, including youtubers who arent as socially relevant as they once were. there are pages on here that havent been touched in years and are more obscure than twomad, but they should stay because wiki is an encyclopedia that helps the people who want to learn about a certain topic. twomads death isnt the only notable thing about him, he was pretty important in the youtube sphere for a bit. he has been trending on twitter with 300k tweets and his channel was sizable enough to be known. THATS why his death is notable. not because he was some random bad dude who just happened to have a youtube channel and overdosed on drugs, but because he has over a quarter of a million tweets on him, was a popular meme figure for at least a year or two, and a youtube channel with more subscribers than the population of north macedonia. BobLavaBot (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I will say yet again - he apparently wasn't notable enough to have a WP article when he was alive. That does not change now that he is dead. ```` --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 17:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't perfect. I'd be absurd to assume that it had an article for everything considered "notable." The fact that the article didn't exist previously shouldn't stop it from exisisting now. Chelk (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the only thing that has changed is the fact that they died - it absolutely should stop it. Dying other than by notable means doesn't change the fact that it wasn't notable before. It is pretty obvious that "being a YouTuber" and "being a streamer" didn't make him notable up to 4 days ago. Being a dead one still doesn't. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 15:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Articles are kept because their topic meets the notability guidelines, not because it exists. TappyTurtle (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I'll rephrase the !vote in a little bit. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EVENTCRIT, deaths are usually not notable, particularly when the cause of death itself is not unusual. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This! --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 17:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same happened with Etika 2601:405:4881:B730:6DE2:3859:8CB1:41CE (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep / draftify - It is poorly written and sourced rather ineffectively, however, that can be fixed. The bigger issue is the lack of sufficient sources. I would say it is probably too early to delete this article. His death gave more coverage to him, however, I am skeptical that it is enough right now. I think WP:DRAFTIFY may be in due here, at least for the time being considering he did not die that long ago and more sources could cover him in the (unforeseeable) future. Not0nshoree (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/how-zoom-renders-private-classrooms-public-a-habermasian-consideration-432b24bc1fdb
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2KveJudVkM
  3. ^ https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/twomad

Source assessment table: prepared by User:PantheonRadiance
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Technology and Social Change - August 2020 Yes Created by researchers at Harvard University that have no affiliation with Twomad. Yes Looks peer reviewed to me Yes Discussed in several paragraphs about his ZOOM meeting content - at least one hundred words. Plus if a scholarly source analyzes your content in this manner, it is definitely a sign of notability, if only partial. ✔ Yes
The JoongAng - December 6, 2021 Yes Not affiliated with Twomad. Yes Appears as a reputable South Korean newspaper. Yes Main topic of article, discusses aspects of his content - in particular his relationship with the KPOP community ✔ Yes
HotNewHipHop - February 14, 2024 Yes Yes Per WP:A/S Yes Main topic of article, notes him as a controversial content creator and discusses aspects of his career prior to death rather than just the death itself. EDIT 2/21/24: Another source has been written about his career. ✔ Yes
NY Daily News - February 14, 2024 Yes Yes Per WP:RSPSS - arguably one of the few sources I'd trust reporting on him right now. Yes Not only does the source report on his death, but also touches a bit upon the allegations and his behavior prior. ✔ Yes
The Daily Dot/Passionfruit - July 26, 2023 Yes Reporter researched and analyzed claims independently of the creator. ~ Although considered fully reliable prior to late 2022, no consensus now emerges. At the very least, it should be considered reliable for internet culture. Yes Ignoring the BLP allegations, there's a lengthy section describing his career in multiple paragraphs. You can easily cite this as SIGCOV of his content without including those allegations. ~ Partial
The Indian Express - February 15, 2024 Yes Unaffiliated with Twomad; facts also look written/verified by editorial team Yes Per WP:INDIANEXP Yes Also writes about his content and life before passing. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
Still not officially voting, but I will say one last thing. We can argue all we want about whether we feel this info about him is significant. But at the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that these outlets clearly found him significant enough to write about him. EDIT 2/16: Found extra The Indian Express source, adding to table. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are reliable secondary sources about some of McDonald's or Little Caesar's franchisees, I'd be all in favor of making an article about them. I'm not sure I'd agree that "They have had more impact" than twomad or any given random cricket player, or how one would measure that, or why one would think that a certain amount of 'impact' was a requirement for notability (in the Wikipedia sense of the word), but I'd still support it if shown the right RS. Heck, if there are RS about you in particular, you may be more notable than you think, my good editor! Perhaps we should have a page about you. I'd have to see the sources first, of course, before commenting one way or the other. Joe (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this individual were alive today, I would think that they'd probably be below WP:GNG. But he's not, and the significant coverage of him and his death pushed him over the line from being on the margins to being a notable person. There is enough in the sourcing to write a brief and neutral encyclopedia biographical entry about him, and much of the coverage doesn't seem related to zoombombing, so I think that this article's subject is best covered in a standalone page rather than being merged to a topic on a particular social phenomenon that doesn't quite cover him fully (and seems to frankly be a minority of the coverage about him). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:05, 22 February 2024 (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