Talk:Liza Koshy/Archive 1

Start
This article is a good start. But sources are missing. Please add them before the article will be published.--Mschiffler (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Something from Variety in 2016 here that would appear to go a long way to assist this draft. And yes, I'm the person who deleted the last articlespace version. Happy to help. --Shirt58 (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

History and notability

 * A prior article at Liza Koshy was nominated for deletion on 16 April 2017, see Articles for deletion/Liza Koshy. Other than the nominator, it received two "delete" !votes, and one comment favoring a keep.  The AfD was closed and the article was deleted on April 24.  Five attempts at recreation in the 24 hours after deletion were summarily deleted.
 * Previous to April 2017, I can see that this article was deleted by admins 5 times in October 2016. Also, Elizabeth Koshy (actress) was deleted twice in October 2016.  And Liza Koshy (entertainer) was deleted three times in April 2017 and three times in January 2017.
 * I have reviewed this person's coverage as of September 2017. I do not have access to the prior deleted content.  I became aware of this article due to the fact that Hank Green tweeted today that he had worked on it..
 * Since the last deletion in April 2017, Koshy has been named the host of a major MTV show and won a teen choice award  among much other coverage.  I think there is no doubt she is notable at this point, no matter what she was before.  She probably was close to notability before, this reminds me of when I had to prove The Annoying Orange had become quite notable despite past deletions.--Milowent • hasspoken  17:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * An additional comment- the youtube views for this person are quite amazing. Once again I see a case where mainstream press coverage was delayed compared to actual popularity among teenagers -- the same story of youth culture trends since the Beatles, really.  This is why the article kept getting recreated by less experienced editors; they assumed she was notable without having a firm grasp of our notability requirements.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I have done some clean-up on the article and would add that Koshy has a starring role in the HULU original tv series Freakish. Season 2 will be released in October. Her main YouTube channel is one of the most popular YouTube channels (also one of the fastest-growing), and even her 2nd YouTube channel is extremely popular. Her Instagram following is also fast-growing, with over 13 million subscribers to date. She also has a large Musical.ly following, although that is harder to reference. I think that she was notable earlier, but at this point, with the second season of Freakish, her new MTV hosting gig and her social media rise, I think her notability is clear. There are also sufficient mainstream WP:RSs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is *not* substantially identical to the page that was previously deleted. Koshy has a starring role in season 2 of the Hulu original TV series Freakish, after the series' success last year. Season 2 will be released in October 2017. She also recently received a recurring MTV hosting gig on the series reboot of Total Request Live, had a role in the feature film Boo! A Madea Halloween, and recently appeared as a recurring character in season 2 of Escape the Night. Her main YouTube channel is one of the most popular YouTube channels (also one of the fastest-growing), with more than 11 million subscribers, and even her 2nd YouTube channel is extremely popular. Her Instagram following is also fast-growing, with over 13 million subscribers to date. All of this is now referenced in the article with WP:RSs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Closing early as move, but cannot be moved until the AFD closes. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Liza Koshy (actress) → Liza Koshy – Unnecessary disambiguation. 24.205.131.55 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Page Liza Koshy (actress) is under AfD, see Articles for deletion/Liza Koshy (actress). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support move: I support the move, but don't we have to wait for the AfD to proceed first? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Keep the article, move the page, she has enough notability to stay on Wikipedia. JE98 (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, upon closure of the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - No one else here is called "Liza Koshy" so the disambiguation is rather pointless. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - perthe above - no need for disambig. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The article should be moved to Liza Koshy, who is the only person by this name with a significant public profile on Google. UWS Guy (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tagging the article
I disagree with the PROMO, etc. tags added to the article by Antonioatrylia. Having failed to speedily delete and then AfD the article, he or she is now simply being unconstructive. If anyone believes there is anything promotional or unencyclopedic in tone in the article, please raise it specifically here so we can all discuss it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Promotional items have been removed by more than just myself. If any other promotional language is added, I will address it at that time. There is no reason to have a quote at the edit earlier. The information can just be written. The quote is promotional because of the "record-breaking" words. They are unnecessary and promotional. It has begun to appear Ssilvers that you are beginning to show signs of WP:OWNERSHIP. As you know wikipedia uses a collaborative method to edit articles. Your statement above "Having failed to delete the article, he or she is now simply being unconstructive." That is untrue and shows bad faith on your part. Remember to show WP:AGF. Comment on the content not the contributors. Antonioatrylia (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Talk about bad faith! Your behavior regarding this article has been outrageous. It appears that you have some kind of bias against this subject, having worked so hard to delete it even after at least two experienced editors asked for it to be reinstated and took steps to fix its referencing problems; in any case, it is crystal clear that you are editing in bad faith. As for the quote, quotes are used sparingly in this article, and the fact that the viewership broke records illuminates the popularity of this subject, which is important to note. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again you have acted in bad faith assumming I have some sort of bias. "it is crystal clear that you are editing in bad faith." That is an outrageous statement right there (without diffs), as well as untrue again. It borders on a direct personal attack. Consider yourself warned for the second time for violating AGF. As to your question above, it is unencyclopedic to say who she is dating. Who cares? I never saw an item like that in a print encyclopedia. Also there is much more in the personal section as well. Please take a breath, address your OWNERSHIP issue, and let's continue to attempt to improve the article by keeping the promotionalism out of the article. Antonioatrylia (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Even Wikipedia's Featured Articles, like Taylor Swift mention dating relationships, so there is ample precedent for it in this encyclopedia. In my view, a dating relationship should not be mentioned unless it is longstanding and publicly acknowledged. In this case, however, Koshy has been dating the same person for more than two years, and he is likely notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article (Dobrik has more than 11,000 Google News hits). I did not create Koshy's article, but when it was brought to my attention, I immediately saw that the subject is an important young entertainer, and it boggles my mind that anyone would try to withhold the article from our readers. I note that the spurious AfD is still outstanding and call on you to withdraw it so that we may move the article to Liza Koshy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Tag bombing
I have removed three of the tags at the top of the page. This is partly because I disagree with them, and partly because such tag bombing is of limited use unless a conversation takes place with the person who sees the problems to identify exactly where they see the issue. As this AfD is (rightly) on course for a SNOW KEEP, we would tighten up any perceived problems. Antonioatrylia, could you please highlight specific examples of the concerns you have and people can then chip in to straighten out any issues that do exist, or we can come to a consensus on what isn't a problem. Thanks. – SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have highlighted the problems above. There has been a discussion going on. You are welcome to join the discussion. Removing appropriate tags unilaterally while a discussion is going on is out of process. I will reapply the tags until the issues are fully addressed. There was no tag bombing. Antonioatrylia (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Antonioatrylia, Please dont edit over the tags. I have disputed them: per BRD you need to DISCUSS them. You haven't done so above, except to say you don't like it. Please provide quoted examples to show exactly what you are disputing and the article can be improved. If you don't provide the examples, it's just a question of you not liking something and no-one will have any idea what you are talking about. - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Read in the section above titled tagging the article. Antonioatrylia (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have. You raised one example that is no longer in the text (alongside accusing someone of ownership who is trying to fix perceived problems). If you stll have problems with other parts of the text, please feel free to quote them here and we can discuss them without need for tag bombing. Feel free to use the following by way of a template. - SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * For Antonioatrylia's use:
 * "". The problem is:
 * "". The problem is:
 * "". The problem is:
 * "". The problem is:


 * I agree with SchroCat. Please do not add unnecesaary tags to the article until there is a clear consesnus that there is a problem with the article. Please list your concerns as suggested above so they can be discussed. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Antonioatrylia, I know you've gotten irritated, but the best thing to do in such situations is to just step back and let the AfD conclude before editing it further when you're in your position of advocating for deletion. When I said earlier your CSD and AFD attempts were unwise, it was not a threat, it was just based on my own many years of experience here, I am by no means perfect and have made errors.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that the banners are not appropriate on the article. The article is not generally promotional or unencyclopedic in tone, and ssilver has done a good job cleaning it up and adding stronger references.  If anyone has a particular concern, let's discuss it here and see if we can reach a consensus on what to do about it. UWS Guy (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
An editor wishes to greatly extend the infobox to repeat much of the information given in the narrative paragraphs of the article. I have reverted this, as I do not believe that it is helpful to our readers. Can others comment, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. The infobox is not for the purpose of giving a summary of the article. Somambulant1 (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. There is way too much superfluous information trying to be shoehorned in. A good rule of thumb is 'less is more'. - SchroCat (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. If one is not supposed to use "too many" fields (where "too many" is undefined), why does Infobox actor support them? Also, why are you not purging the articles Joan Crawford, Chiang Kai-shek, Madonna (entertainer), Enrico Caruso, George Washington, Logan Paul, etc. of their "superfluous information"?  Sounds like a double standard.  -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OSE. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also note that, in addition to the repetitive information, some of the information sought to be added is unreferenced in the article, including the long list of claimed "associated acts". Obviously, no unreferenced information can be allowed in the Infobox. BTW, WP:INFOBOXUSE states: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." (ital. added). -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I read the part of WP:OSE that states "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." and I find the specific argument about associated_acts much more convincing than the less-than-detailed arguments that have preceded it. So now that that's out of the way, why are the residence, known_for, years active, genre, catchphrase(s), subscribers, views, and network fields "superfluous"? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You've turned the normal way of doing things on its head. If you think something should be changed, you have to explain why it should be implemented. Just to save you wasting time on the obviously ridiculous ones: "residence" is pointless fluff and a BLP minefield; "catchphrase" is not mentioned elsewhere, unsourced (a BLP violation) and doesn't look like a catchphrase to me; "Known for" is a repetition of "occupation"; I could go on with the others, but I'd like to hear just why you think these fields are so essential. - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello. I do not believe that this article needs an infobox at all, per WP:INFOBOXUSE and WP:DISINFOBOX.  If the consensus is to have one, then I agree with ssilver that it should be kept concise; infoboxes should only contain essential at-a-glance information regarding key aspects of the subject. Years active is not important information that should take up space at the top of this article, since Koshy is a living person who is still active. The information was also unreferenced.  Residence is unimportant, as this person is not, for example, the mayor of a particular place. "Known for" is the same as her occupations in this case, so that is totally redundant. Genre is unclear here, and I doubt we could find a WP:RS that says "x is her primary genre".  Most of her YouTube videos are comedic, but her current acting job is drama, and her TV hosing job is ???.  So, anything we wrote in the IB would be unhelpful or even misleading.  Maybe in a few years, it will be clear that she is a comedian, but maybe not.  Catchphrase? Also misleading, not to mention unreferenced. Subscribers and views are constantly changing and are alread mentioned twice elsewhere in the article.  Why should we have to update them constantly in 3 places?  Network is of no importance here at all.  It barely belongs in the article, let alone in the IB, which should contain only key info. I would be interested to hear from people who have added research and content to this article or helped to save it from deletion.  Wikipedia should be less interested in the views of driveby editors who come to an article merely to insist on particular formatting styles (including infoboxes).  UWS Guy (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That is exactly right. Today, a useful article was published in Decider.com about Koshy, but instead of adding this new source to the article, editors want to add unreferenced or redundant information to the infobox. I would also be in favor of deleting the infobox. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article does not need an infobox and if one is inevitable it must be as concise as possible. Jack1956 (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted this change as a misinterpretation of consensus. While, normally, you would garner consensus at each individual article, this article is part of WikiProject YouTube. See their MOS: WikiProject YouTube/Style guide. The different articles on YouTubers should be standardized, and consensus would need to be reached with that project before it is to be removed from this article. Nihlus 02:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects cannot override WP:INFOBOX (or any other guideline). This is well-established. By the way, where were you when people wanted to delete this article and we had to work hard to save it? Nowhere to be found, that's where. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This article falls under several projects and the local consensus of any one project does not take a dominant position above site-wide guidelines. There is also an open thread to discuss the IB, so edit warring to force a change without discussion is in breach of the edit warring policies; please see WP:STATUS QUO. - SchroCat (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not what edit warring means; one edit is not edit warring. You guys conveniently missed the part at Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes. Perhaps you should stop pointless reverting of established consensus by trying to form a local consensus and actually look at how it is done on almost every single other page out there. That's consensus. Have it by itself or have it as a module within an actor infobox, I don't care. Where I am and what discussions I take part in have nothing to do with this topic. Please keep your comments about content, and not people. Okay? Nihlus 16:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong, on several levels I'm afraid: one edit can be edit warring if you are joining in a reverting cycle, which is what has happened here. There is no "local consensus" in applying the template on an actor, despite what your one project is trying to do, and I have no idea what you are talking about when you say people should look at "how it is done on almost every single other page out there". How what is done, exactly? As the infobox guidelines are flexible and say that consensus needs to be determined on each page, perhaps you could specify exactly what you mean. - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant what I said: Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes. (And no, one cannot be edit warring as one editor of their own accord making one edit.) Nihlus 16:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you're the sort who doesn't actually understand how things work. 1. yes, edit warring can be just one revert if it's in the middle of an edit war cycle (go ask an admin and see what they say); 2. Yes, I know the MoS on Infoboxes, but I still have no idea what you are talking about, probably because you don't actually understand it properly. There is no requirement to have multiple templates in an IB; there is no requirement to have an IB; there is no requirement to have the bloated mess of an IB you posted. All these things (the presence of an IB, which modules (if any), which information to include) are all decided by discussion at the article talk page where people come to a consensus. The guideline you have linked to just says that multiple modules are possible, not compulsory. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of unnecessary ad hominem directed at me (I would remind you of WP:NPA, but I don't understand how things work). I'll be leaving since both of you are incapable of discussing things without attacking other editors. Have fun. Nihlus</b> 16:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ~sigh~ There are no ad hominem comments aimed at you at all, but if you do not understand some of the basics of how things work - particularly about how consensus is reached on articles - then Wiki life can be very rocky. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

[Left]. You are just totally wrong. There is nothing in WP:INFOBOX that says that you must use the template that any given wikiproject recommends, and it is totally clear that an infobox is not required, and that any particular field in an infobox is not required. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)