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. Michig (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanossgaming[edit]

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

Apparently, according to Lazygamer.net (whatever that is), this person is the 5th most popular Gaming YouTuber. I don't think we have guideline for that category of people, but I am pretty sure that this person doesn't pass any kind of guideline that requires significant coverage. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All we have are a bunch of references to statistics about YouTube viewership, but no significant coverage of the actual topic in reliable, independent sources, which are required to show notability. A secondary issue is that the article includes prose such as "and is since a while always seen playing with his friends", which doesn't strike me as encyclopedic content. But I could be wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just found an article mentioning him in Kotaku Australia, looks like there's at least some notability. XeroxKleenex (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a passing mention in a gamer blog. That's not significant coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A reliable source doesn't have to be the New York Times, and that site is a news organization, with an editorial staff and a physical address. It's not a blog run out of somebody's basement. Vanossgaming was used as the source for the article, and was the source for the videos included in it, it wasn't a passing mention. I included it as an example, not as sufficient to support the Vanossgaming article on its own. XeroxKleenex (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku has been determined by WikiProject Video games to be a generally reliable source, except for "blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance", which is exactly what this is. It's a passing mention of a video demonstrating a glitch, not "significant coverage" of Vanossgaming himself as WP:N requires. Woodroar (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. I have only been able to find trivial coverage. Woodroar (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally created the article, but has since then been discussed many times to be deleted. I do not quite understand why, since his channel is greatly discussed in the YouTube community, but as said it is new compared to the other channels in the top 20. This is why he is not mentioned on many websites yet, so many references are missing. Also, I am a fan of him, and this said the article was pretty much made from a fan point of view, and in the talk page I mentioned it could be slightly edited. He does not fail WP:N since, as said, he is highly ranked in the YouTube community and he does not fail WP:V either, since the websites showing his statistic are licensed and highly reliable. JordiTK (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He obviously exists, has a YouTube channel, and many subscribers, but that doesn't count towards notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and primary or unreliable sources doesn't allow us to write a quality encyclopedia article. We require multiple in-depth independent reliable sources, such as legitimate game journalism, to meet that minimum threshold. I'll use a ridiculous (but true) analogy: if the Sun was only discussed on forums and in user-edited databases, we wouldn't have an article about it on Wikipedia, despite the fact that most of us see it every day and it's pretty important to our continued existence. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand this, however, I have been told (by an admin as well) that the websites I am linking to, like Vidstatsx, which of course shows his channel's statistics, is enough proof for an article. I am sorry if this is not the case and if the article will be removed again I will search for more reliable websites, but it will probably take a while before they are mentioning him as being known on YouTube. JordiTK (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did that admin tell you that Vidstatsx was a satisfactory source for helping establish notability or merely for verification of one or more statements in the article? Many sources are considered reliable sources for the purpose of verifying specific assertions, but touch only trivially on the subject of the article or give what is considered routine coverage. An example would be a theatre program that can be used to validate a claim that the subject of an article played such-and-such part in such-and-such a play at that theatre, but it wouldn't at all help establish the person's notability. In this case, the Vidstatsx page verifies nothing but the fact that Vanossgaming is listed on that page. It lumps his page in with over 100 other pages, and gives him no particular focus.

If a guideline specifically for gamer notability, similar to the one for academics and the one for actors, were to be established by consensus for gamers, it's possible that one agreed-to criterion for establishing notability would be "Included at any time on the Top 100 page on the Vidstatsx website". But that isn't currently the case. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Largoplazo is correct. Rankings on sites like these, including on YouTube, are subject to being gamed, which is part of the reason that Alexa doesn't "count" towards website notability guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This is a pretty borderline case. In addition to the Kotaku reference mentioned above, this source and this source do manage to show some degree of notability. That being said, the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG hasn't quite been met yet (though I might change my !vote if more sources are found). Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: He's well-known among people I know and definitely prevalent on the internet, but I just don't see the coverage required to keep it. _{None of the sources show up in the WikiProject Video Games whitelist, although since he's primarily a YouTube channel, that doesn't mean a lot.}
Delete - He may be popular in the YouTube crowds, but he doesn't have the coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails to meet WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. This is the only thing even approaching a reliable source that would meet WP:GNG, and there's no significant coverage in it about the subject. All the other references in the article are sites that chart views and subscriber data which fall under WP:USERG and, regardless, have no context or significance for the subject in terms of showing notability. - Aoidh (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't enough significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) to sustain an article about this YouTuber. The best hits in a video game reliable sources search were passing mentions from VG247 and Kotaku—not nearly enough for a full article, nevertheless a blurb or section somewhere else. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 06:14, 15 August 2014 (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.