Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hbomberguy


 * 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. Consensus seems clear that WP:BLP1E does not apply and that there is enough significant coverage about the subject from various reliable sources to satisfy the notability guidelines. clpo13(talk) 20:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hbomberguy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person is presently only notable for a widely noted charity stream, thus failing WP:BLP1E. Most of the other info outside of this stream is primary-sourced, and thus not appropriate. M asem (t) 20:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG and WP:PAGEDECIDE. The article has multiple outside sources outside of this event in which he is given reception and recognition by news sources. However, I do believe that more sources should be added, as there are definitely more that are not cited in the article but should be. Nihkee (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If it were about the event rather than the person running it, that might give more reason to keep it, but even then, the event itself is just one thing and wouldn't have a dedicated article on it. The event has been noted at a few pages on related topics (and because of that event I was prompted to complete Video games and charity which includes that event). But being only one event, we shouldn't have a bio page just for that. --M asem (t) 21:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to the article on the charity all information as appropriate, per WP:BLP1E. --Izno (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Refocus to be about the stream itself and then we can discuss merging. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, following efforts to improve it and find sources beyond the charity stream. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep with main focus on the charity stream; the stream would probably be notable enough to have its own page but I don't support a merge on that because of the fact that this guy does have other notability (even if just a little) as a vlogging gamer - and the only gamer to be recognised as a fundraiser etc. by the Scottish government (strange, but notable). I am not a gamer, and I'd heard of him before the stream, so his notability must transcend the niche. Kingsif (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel like BLP1E turns in the other direction for this article. The individual's role in this single event was very well documented and substantial, with his involvement discussed at length in a wide array of reliable sources listed on the page already. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject of the article has notability outside of the charity stream, mostly for his YouTube videos, so WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here. It also passes WP:GNG. Additionally, I've expanded the article with some more independent sources since the nomination for deletion if anyone would like to take another look. Linguistical (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely not WP:BLP1E, his youtube work has been acclaimed by Forbes, Polygon (twice), Slate, and nominated 3 times by 3 different experts in the field on BFI's Sight and Sound. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Only as a note, Forbes contributor sites are not usable RSes. --M asem (t) 00:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I edited my contribution and added relevant links. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources don't say anything about him outside the videos. This kind of narrow coverage usually results in deleting the article. w umbolo   ^^^  19:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Ihaveacatonmydesk and WP:GNG for being covered in multiple sources for multiple events. Proposer is likely only familiar with the recent "charity stream" and not Brewis' other notabilities. Article may need a title change too. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep a quick scan on google news shows he comes up in articles not regarding the charity event from sources as varied as Forbes and Polygon. Rab V (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I can find only passing mentions in coverage prior to the charity. I only found this, but it comes from a publication of questionable reliability. WP:IKNOWIT is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. w umbolo   ^^^  10:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I added some links from reliable sources to my contribution if you want to check those out. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I think his general notability before his event is pretty substantial enough. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a notable entertainer and commentator, charity stream or not. Additionally, this is not a badly written article, and certainly isn't unimprovable. This shouldn't even be candidate for deletion. Acolossus &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 17:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * keep per User:Ihaveacatonmydesk ShimonChai (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: lots of the media coverage about the charity stream discusses Brewis and his videos in depth (e.g. ). As others have pointed out, his videos have been subject to previous Polygon coverage and I don't understand 's remark, The sources don't say anything about him outside the videos, because this is an article about a YouTuber. Coverage of his YouTube videos is equivalent to coverage about him. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 09:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No it is not. You can try and make a WP:ENT argument but we need WP:BASIC coverage about the person to have an article about the person. w umbolo   ^^^  10:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The current article (and my rationale) substantiates that BASIC is met, but the sources which discuss his videos are discussing him as an internet figure, which is what the article is about. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not my impression of the sources prior to the charity. w umbolo   ^^^  14:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you expecting? Even famous polticians may only have a one line section on their "Personal life" perhaps stating they are married with two children, with the rest of the article all being about things they did, rather than about them.--Pontificalibus 20:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The articles cited are obviously narrowly focused on his videos. They do not talk about him in general. w umbolo   ^^^  20:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Legitimate question: What is the difference between a small but critically praised author whose books are not in a series and whose press coverage is narrowly focused on their books and this situation here? If the only connection between the works is their creator, and the works are praised, but the sole author is merely mentioned as the author but otherwise not discussed, how is the Wikipedia community to categorize that? --Amorilinguae (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hbomberguy is not an author. w umbolo   ^^^  19:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. As others have pointed out, there are multiple secondary sources covering not only the charity stream but other aspects of his work. Fairly cut and dry. If there's any problem with the current state of wikipedia its the aversion some editors seem to have classing "new media" personas and topics as being notable. Niche subjects in established mediums will be uncontested, but subject with a contemporary online following in the hundreds of thousands and multiple secondary sources will be nominated for deletion... BlackholeWA (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing has changed, it's just that editors have become willing to accept articles which say absolutely nothing useful about the subject, and completely ignore WP:BLP1E. w umbolo   ^^^  18:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm quite confused behind the rationale here. As far as I can see, this article doesn't fit the "anti-guidelines" in BLP1E at all. It has other sources; the subject has been notable for at least quite a while prior. (The other parts of BLP1E don't even apply at all.)Nihkee (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The prior coverage is a little about some of his videos, but nothing about him personally or about his career in general. The AfD nom of Boogie2988 should've been borderline, but it was unanimously kept (except the nominator). Many YouTubers receive very narrowly focused coverage on one or more videos, but regardless of the depth of the coverage, we need some context to be able to write an article per WP:WHYN. Of course, there are also specific notability guidelines, but we can't mix different guidelines to have some rationale to keep. Some participants here have invoked WP:CREATIVE, but that's usually not invoked in YouTube-related discussions. My primary concern is whether the article is about a living person or a channel – we have to be careful when discussing the former. w umbolo   ^^^  20:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is about both the person and the channel. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bilorv. Aimeec110 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. ContraPoints also has a YouTube channel, and her channel is very similar to HBomb's in terms of content, impact, and media relevance. If her channel is relevant enough to warrant having a page then HBomb's channel is certainly relevant enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:700:eaa0:1240:f3ff:fe7d:7900 (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:GNG. There are many in-depth articles about ContraPoints in the news and magazines outside of one event. There are only a handful of articles mentioning just 1-2 videos by HBG outside of his livestream, see WP:BLP1E. w umbolo   ^^^  19:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. - Sourced well enough, and definitely meets GNG. - R9tgokunks   ⭕  08:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets or exceeds standards applied to YouTube personalities with pages on Wikipedia. My concern is that the proposal to delete this page is a knee-jerk reaction to hbomberguy's sudden increase in fame due to an inherently politically charged event. We can revisit this issue later if need be, but when it comes to notability I'm very much of the mind that "I know it when I see it." RexSueciae (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2019 (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.