Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice Poseidon


 * 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. Comments in favor of delete were in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, while those in favor in keep were not. Kurykh (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Ice Poseidon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionable notability for this YouTube person. Unsupported claims of significance (one was previously supported by a self-published claim before I replaced that with a cn tag; another had a cite that failed to support the claim, also replaced with a cn tag). Article has previously run into CSD A7 twice. I'm not convinced by the article in its current state and feel that notability is not clearly established. Murph 9000 (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a possible WP:BLP1E in there, in terms of the bomb hoax on a commercial flight, but if that's the only supported notable thing, then I believe the article fails overall BLP notability.  Murph 9000  (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are multiple notable events that can be validated by major news broadcasting companies(abc,fox..) Mrs.Nesbitt (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The first two attempts to create the page were defintely not legitimate attempts to create a proper wikipedia page and were just to troll. - unsure if that makes a difference but probably should, as this is the first real sourced article.

Also I agree, before the bomb threat, and permanent ban by Twitch, the article probably didn't deserve to be created.

I'm unclear on your statement that there are too many primary sourced articles, which in particular? As most as secondary sources. Jimmybobbyson (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC) (unsure of formating of these talk pages, feel free to fix formating if needed).

Ice Poseidon is the top live-streamer on the Internet. Murph9000 is a jealous hater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:1202:700:654B:547F:82D0:779B (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Ice_Poseidon is worthy of a wikipedia article the same way pewdiepie is. Ice_Poseidon is leading the way in real-time video streaming and has an audience of 20,000 on average everytime there is a broadcast. He has sponsorship from corporations such as logitec. This article was created most likely as a troll attempt but like Ice_Poseidon it has went viral and a decent attempt was made to turn it into a genuine article by his fans. The initial article contained poorly worded sections(including some by myself) which were then later changed to the standard that wikipedia sets. As the article currently stands it is currently incomplete as it was locked so anyone wishing to make correct changes are unable to do so hence the article looks like garbage. In a few days when the people who created accounts to correct the article are able to then they will provide more credible sources and return the page to wiki standards.2A02:C7F:862E:9300:5D90:BC87:C1B4:33CB (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG. There are no in depth articles about this fellow. At best he is WP:BIO1E for the plane thing, but otherwise, not at all notable. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - @SW3 5DL Here is a recent indepth article about Ice_Poseidon. https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/05/for-twitch-streamer-who-got-swatted-on-a-plane-notoriety-is-a-double-edged-sword/ Jimmybobbyson (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep the article you need to ivote 'Keep' and add this new source to the article. In addition, the article would need to be rewritten. But I'd add that this probably won't be enough because he's still not widely notable. See the guidelines here. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete no videos with >1 million views, very few at >100k. Being banned from Twitch doesn't establish notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Very popular streamer. Having no youtube videos at high views is irrelevant when he is a streamer. Also the most notable and questionable twitch bans A Boar (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note The dubious claims which were previously unsourced, and that I previously tagged with cn, are still unsourced despite having a single Kotaku source near them. As far as I can see, the cited article does not come close to supporting the claims of the most famous IRL streamer on Twitch and the highest amount of viewers on the entire platform are entirely unsourced and nothing more than puffery which appears to be somewhat disconnected from reality.  Quite frankly, I do not believe either of those claims to be close to the truth, I do not see any evidence to support them, and see them as nothing more than an extreme and promotional exaggeration.  Roughly half of the current sources are not reliable sources, so do not support the content associated with them, many are primary or self-published.  I stand by my original delete nomination.   Murph 9000  (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:GNG Prevan (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2017 (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.