Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennett White


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Bennett White

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

Youtuber, sources do not demonstrate in-depth coverage in independent sources. MB 03:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MB 03:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * With tens of thousands of views this guy probably has a bigger platform than many things we do cover, but I’m not turning up anything that looks like an RS so it’s probably a merge or redirect to Channel Awesome unless something turns up. Artw (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As an aside, White left Channel Awesome in April 2018 along with most of their other content-creators in the "management controversy" walkout, and all of his work formerly hosted there has been purged. The RS conferring notability located so far for the article (see Keep below) post-date that departure.--Froglich (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment,  and Internet.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reliable sourcing found under this, his former name "Bennett the Sage", or the names of his individual shows. Doesn't even seem worth mentioning in the Channel Awesome article Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've located two interviews with White and added them to the article.--Froglich (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Interviews are primary sources and do not count toward notability absent anything else. Further I'm not sure either sources is a reliable one. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Some points from the primary sources page:
 * 1) "...a given source can contain both primary and secondary source material..." I maintain that the particular interviews included are such a mix, as each writer of the cited article ia a "...secondary source (who) provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources" (i.e., his interview with the subject).
 * 2) "...Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved..." Neither commentator/interviewer appears to be close to or directly involved with Bennett White, Anime Abandon, Channel Awesome, (etc), or the creation of anime itself as an occupation as far as I am able to determine, or even write preferentially about anime over other topics such as music, gaming, or mainstream film and television.
 * 3) Interviews are labeled by name as primary sources only in Note d. at the bottom the page, with the relevant sentence concluding "...(see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § News organizations)...", upon which page the word "interview" does not appear at all. (In other words, how editors are to treat interviews for the purposes of notability is currently much less clear than it ought to be.) The first bullet-point to Note d. begins: "...The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing 'an inside view of a particular event'..." Neither interviewer of White is such as "insider".
 * The interview quandary here stems from lack of specification, and the overly broad applicability of the term to completely different types of events. For example, if a reporter interviews a random witness on-the-street to some disaster, that interview is a primary source in need of corroboration. This is categorically different from a writer seeking out a subject-of-interest (i.e., a celebrity who is already notable in that writer's view) to cover. GeekNewsNow and SOTBNerdy sought out White in the latter capacity.--Froglich (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Just a query, if this article was merged or redirected, what would be the target article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Since they nuked most of the walk-out creators' content and even purged their internal search-engine of returnable mentions, Channel Awesome certainly doesn't deserve any free click traffic from inputted creator's name redirects. (That was a primary motivation for this article, and Bennett White is only one of potentially several other former Channel Awesome/Anime Abandon personnel that could warrant independent recognition. E.g., Marc Swint comes to mind.)--Froglich (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete No hits on this fellow, either hits on Naftali Bennett from Israel or other versions of his name. The discussion above doesn't seem to show any further reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have boldfaced the pertinent sentence in the discussion above. Sufficient RS already exists to maintain this article. (Also: Naftali Bennett is a different person who already has an article on Wikipedia, and for whom "hits" are easily located.)--Froglich (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: searching for "Anime Abandon" or "Bennett the Sage" will locate more applicable material than "Bennett White" since Google upranks (especially in "news"-restricted returns) hits on Israeli politician "Naftali Bennett’s White House visit", "Bennett, White, and Cook" (etc, a football team's last names), and Bennett-style furniture painted white.--Froglich (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2022 (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.