Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CGP Grey


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 00:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

CGP Grey

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:SOAP, notability not evident from sourcing provided, huge number of primary sources all WP:RSPYT, checked many others and they are clearly not RS for a BLP, have been tagged since 2018 about primary sourcing issues, simplest solution to delete unless viable WP:SECONDARY provided. Acousmana (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep* – This was originally going to be a "Delete", but this channel's content has just been given too much attention from a variety of reliable, independent sources that I believe this meets WP:CREATIVE, insofar as he has "3) created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and furthermore because his work has "4(c) won significant critical attention."** This isn't just limited to the coverage in our citations, however; as an example, The Daily Dot – known to be a reliable source for Internet culture – has nine articles which exclusively cover Grey's works. The case for criterion 3) is compounded by the fact that Hello Internet has been a popular podcast, topping out as the number 1 iTunes podcast in five large countries. As we have a main article for it, the section "Hello Internet" should be reduced substantially and material possibly merged over to that article. That this article has been tagged for being too reliant on primary sources is not an ultimatum to delete it handed down by god; it just means that, according to one editor who placed it there (and I agree with this editor), the article needs to be trimmed back as to be less reliant overall on primary sources (as an example, "Videos are released on the channel and via RSS" really isn't relevant to our article unless this fact is somehow covered in reliable, independent sources) or for the content to be sourced to reliable, independent sources where possible.

* Disclosure: I watch the channel casually, but I spent a fair amount of time performing WP:BEFORE and remaining as neutral as I can. ** As a a YouTube channel like this serves a dual function of being the creative behind the work and the body of work itself, I sort of just treat it as a superposition between the two.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  00:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * whatever way you look at it, the sourcing on this is horrible, dependency on primary citations throughout is an issue for a BLP, with the bulk of content sourced to videos. Per WP:ABOUTSELF "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves...as long as: [5] the article is not based primarily on such sources." We could add "[1] the material is ...unduly self-serving" and we could argue that "[4] reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" exists. Acousmana (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to see how content like Grey decided to become a physics teacher in the UK; he went through a one-year course to earn a physics PGCE and graduated being qualified to teach physics in England and Wales is "unduly self-serving" or has "reasonable doubt" when supported by a podcast of the person describing themselves as such (I suppose timestamps would be nice in the ref but that's about it). It all seems appropriate to me. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * self-serving in overall tone of soapy article, but hey, i'm not a fan of this obsessive cataloging of YouTube "personalities" that goes on here, and some random YT dude saying stuff on a some random podcast, he could literally say anything, and we are citing it as "fact." But again, wtf do I know? I literally never heard of this nobody before yesterday. Acousmana (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep – The last two paragraphs of CGP Grey clearly establish his notability. —Dexxor (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: the primary coverage is fine—it just doesn't contribute towards notability. If you think it's a bit too much then the "simplest solution" is to fix it yourself, not to delete (which is neither the simplest action nor a solution at all). Notability is established through coverage cumulatively across, by descending significance: nine Daily Dot articles, four Gizmodo articles, two CBS articles, Washington Post, HuffPost, Mashable, Yahoo and The Guardian (about Hello Internet). Each source in this list except maybe the last two is (just about) long enough for significance (and reliable, independent and secondary) and the aggregate meets WP:GNG as they are about a diversity of videos across a wide time range. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Furthermore, during WP:BEFORE, I found: Boing Boing (twice, thrice, another, and another, and a sixth, seventh, eigth), The Verge, The Washington Post (again, albeit this time in part of a listicle), Vox (twice), Popular Mechanics (twice, thrice), Business Insider (again, albeit same day; same author), Business Insider again, ScienceAlert, Quartz, the Staten Island Advance, WLS-TV (ABC Chicago), NPR, Slate, and this wasn't even an exhaustive search; this took me like five minutes. Hence, I changed my mind before voting.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  15:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep AfD is not cleanup. If there is an overreliance on primary sourcing that doesn't fall under something like WP:ABOUTSELF, then it should be fixed or removed. Not really an argument relevant to whether sufficient secondary sourcing exists to write an article.  G M G  talk  13:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - As already mentioned above, the copious amounts of primary sources used in the article do not contribute to notability, but it ultimately doesn't matter because there are plenty of secondary sources discussing the channel as well. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly a notable person. By all means remove any accumulated fancruft from the article, and tag anything poorly referenced, but the subject itself is fine. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep In an episode of Hello Internet (forgot which one) Brady and Grey talked about how Grey and his wife had a debate over whether tennis balls are green or yellow. This went viral and was mentioned in dozens of news articles. While not many cited Grey he was the root cause. HiTheLegend 18:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – I voted keep, and while this did appear to originate with Grey and was subsequently discussed in that article from The Atlantic, the debate thereafter from sources such as CNN, SB Nation, USA Today Sports, The Daily Telegraph, etc., did not include Grey as the progenator of this question whatsoever, making this, in my opinion, a very weak argument to keep the article.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  18:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment so clearly this guy is much better known than that heavily primary sourced soapy article appeared to indicate, with more eyes on it, any chance we can strip the weak stuff out and leave/add stronger WP:SECONDARY? Acousmana (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2021 (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.