Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Jake Paul


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Asian Jake Paul

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The content here that is actually sourced to usable sources (Newsweek and The Daily Dot, both situational, and Billboard's charts listing) is already covered on iDubbbz and RiceGum. This does not need its own page. — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 08:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Internet.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - The song is notable on its own despite its connections to the two aforementioned subjects. Something which I'm pretty sure a majority of the internet will probably agree to. Deleting this article would be like deleting the articles of individual songs from an album by a artist, additionally not all of the chart positions are covered by the articles you mentioned. DovahDuck (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:NOTMERGE. This article provides additional context that would be inappropriate to include in the main article (per WP:DUE). I basing this off the fact that WP:GNG holds, given the level of sourced detail in the article. A source analysis can change my !vote, of course. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons listed by the editors above. 03:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Barbasthetalkingdog (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:NSINGLE (independent coverage and chart position) and a separate article provides better context for the single as its own notable subject. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Chart positions only indicates that it may be notable, according to the guideline you linked. As for independent coverage: The Daily Dot and Newsweek are situational (WP:RSP). The first is mainly about the iDubbbz-RiceGum feud and only briefly mentions the diss track. Newsweek leans towards unreliable after it was acquired by IBT Media; this source also only briefly mentions the song as well.
 * Press Reality and TrendingAllDay 404. Googling the first doesn't come up with anything, and Googling the second brings up only a handful of social media accounts. Not much to suggest that these are reliable sources. The Reykjavik Grapevine also does not have significant coverage and does not appear to be a journalistic piece.
 * Regardless of reliability, none of the working sources here appear to meet WP:SIGCOV. — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 22:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:WHATSIGCOV, significant coverage is the ability to extract information from the sources without WP:OR. In the article, there is clearly nontrivial sourced information about the single, which is why I would argue for WP:SIGCOV. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing that on the essay you linked. It says that as an example, "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." So I think that these sources should be classified as trivial mentions. — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 22:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. I was just saying that if an article has been written about the subject and the sources represent the content (ie. no OR), then WP:SIGCOV is guaranteed. That is the idea behind WP:WHATSIGCOV. I believe this is the case here but a more thorough source analysis could always change my mind. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.