User:Whiteguru/sandbox3

Youtube Principles

 * Per WP:BASIC, the starting point is significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources.
 * If coverage in a given secondary source is more than trivial, but less than substantial, multiple such sources can be combined.
 * Primary sources don't count towards notability (though they can be used to support specific content in the article)
 * The subscriber count on a YouTube channel is a primary source
 * The subscriber count must have been included in something that has been independently written about in a reliable secondary source
 * The 'additional criteria' for notable people are helpful, but do not guarantee notability
 * Subscriber count helps meet the second criteria of WP:ENT.
 * If a YouTuber doesn't have a lot of subscribers, and cites no reliable independent sources, that's grounds for deletion.
 * Few articles about YouTubers have been kept unless they have upwards of one million subscribers
 * Subscription counts do not make one notable. Nor does wealth, revenue, and other size metrics. This is however a benchmark that can be useful in assessing subject matter—a YouTuber with millions of subscribers is more likely to be notable than one with tens of thousands

Influencers
Archive 185
 * "Influencers are someone (or something) with the power to affect the buying habits or quantifiable actions of others by uploading some form of original—often sponsored—content to social media platforms like Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat or other online channels"
 * -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Summarizing some thoughts.
 * 1) As JBchrch said, number of followers no longer counts toward notability.
 * 2) Everyone seems to agree that the rules should not be looser.
 * 3) I think "influencer" could be defined as someone whose primary notability is derived from self-publishing on a site like tiktok, youtube, instagram.  (added)
 * 4) I wonder if what's really required is some additional clarity about what types of coverage should count for notability.  For right or wrong, Sassa Gurl was deleted via AFD.  Here's example of some coverage where they made headline news:  Cosmo Philippines: "10 Sassa Gurl TikTok Skits That Will Unlock ~Highly Specific~ Pinoy Memories", ABS-CBN: "Manila Luzon wants Piolo Pascual as leading man, hopes to collaborate with Sassa Gurl", MSN: "Netizens want Sassa Gurl to be one of the housemates instead of Justin Dizon" -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

ProveIt
WP:PRIT

Merge Tags
WP:PMG Template:Old merge ✅

then the discussion

Courtesy of TimTrent
It is rare that I review a draft more than once, but I am doing so this time because I believe that you have a misunderstanding of referencing.

First let me explain, again, what we need. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

I could now go on to compare each of your references with that. That is a great deal of effort, and we have a methodology for doing so. Instead, let me try, once again to guide you:

Interviews with the principal verify simple facts, but are primary sources. They cannot show notability. It matters not who performed the interview.

Press release material (broadly anything that looks like an announcement event) is what the principal wishes to say. In that is included any regurgitated PR material, for example, a by-line article that looks and feels like a press release. Primary sources.

Passing Mentions (broadly fewer than three substantial paragraphs on the principal) fail to establish notability.

Links to generic home pages that do not mention the principal, have absolutely no value.

Do I give any value to the testicular cancer campaign? Only as a man possessing testicles, but these are PR pieces. Any such thing is a marketing campaign.

Any announcement of sponsorship packages? A marketing campaign.

Articles that discussing generic manscaping without significant coverage of MANSCAPED fail.

Your best approach is to reverse what you are doing. Instead of editing this draft you need references. No amount of editing can create notability where you have not proved it. Follow the steps in this essay, one of many which guide the creation of articles. Start by finding references that meet our requirements, and rewrite the draft form the ground up, using only references which prove notability. It will be far shorter, or you may prove to yourself that MANSCAPED is not yet ready for an article.

I could have "been kind" to you and accepted this draft. I view it as almost certain that it would fail an immediate deletion process. That would make it next to impossible for you or anyone to create a new article about it, thus would not have been kind at all.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.

Modified with Sources
What is needed are references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources.A much better guide is WP:SOURCES ... Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion. Kindly do the needful. Thank you.

Shitty sources
The Media Bias Chart is widely referenced in reliable sources. It appears to be accepted as broadly correct.

It has two axes: partisanship and reliability. In Wikipedia terms, the following seems to be true:
 * Hyper-partisan sources are not reliable for unattributed statements of fact. This includes the likes of The Intercept, Mother Jones, HuffPos, Slate, National Review, Reason, Weekly Standard. These sources are always open to challenge and should be removed if challenged and only reintroduced if there is consensus.
 * Unreliable sources are unreliable, and also usually highly partisan. Only the National Inquirer seems to publish bollocks pretty much regardless of its political angle.

As a principle I would have zero problem with the following:
 * Sources in the green box (AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, WSJ, WaPo, FT etc. are generally considered reliable for factual statements because they clearly distinguish them from editorial. They are generally acceptable for editorial when attributed with a few qualified exceptions such as the WSJ's inexplicable promotion of climate change denialism, which qualifies for exclusion under WP:FRINGE.
 * Sources in the yellow box are generally reliable for reports of fact but require care and attribution for statements of opinion. The position on the axes matters. CNN is more reliable than the Washington Times or HuffPo (equal quality but less bias), Slate is more reliable than Washington Examiner (equal bias but better quality). There is internal variability. Rachel Maddow is pretty scrupulous about fact-checking, but much of MSNBC is just unsourced opinion and should not be cited.
 * Sources in the orange box - "extreme / unfair interpretations" - should not be used unless there is a compelling reason and consensus on Talk among editors of multiple ideological viewpoints.
 * Sources in the red box - "nonsense, damaging to public discourse" - should be blacklisted. That is massively controversial right now, because it includes a handful of liberal sites that most liberal editors know not to use (Palmer Report, Wonkette, Bipartisan report, Occupy Democrats) and virtually all the conservative outlets popular with MAGA types, including InfoWars, WND, Blaze, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Daily Caller.

Note that Alternet is in the same box as the NY Post, Daily Mail and Daily Wire here. I agree with that. Neither are appropriate sources and both could be blacklisted: nothing of value would be lost. In fact I would also include Daily Kos, Second Nexus, OAN and Fox News. It's highly unlikely that any of these would be the sole source for any genuinely significant fact.

Also sites with no evidence of WP:RS: