Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Historian


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  06:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Internet Historian

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

3.97m subscribers is impressive but half of the sourcing is youtube, the vulture article is one tiny mention, and i don't think the plagiarism today article qualifies for a wikipedia biography. Password (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, I saw the page requested in the internet culture WikiProject page, so I did it because of that. I think he is notable enough for an article, maybe there just needs to be better sourcing. The plagiarism isn't supposed to be his biography, just a notable thing that happened recently. I tried looking for sources for the guy's biography, but he doesn't seem to be very public about his personal life. But I don't think a lack of personal details means that this isn't notable enough for an article. This channel has an influential presence on internet culture, so I don't see why he wouldn't be qualified, there are other public figures with secretive personal lives that still have articles. Ludensg (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * well they do have a lot of subscribers, but that doesn't meet they qualify notability on Wikipedia (WP:BIO). if you can find strong sourcing please link them here and ping me Password  (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to ping, but here are the current references, which I believe do qualify this article on Wikipedia's notability policies.
 * "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
 * The sources, mainly a Forbes article, Newshub a notable New Zealand news service, and Critical Hit a game journalism website, provide significant coverage, and are independent of each other, and sufficiently reliable. This, without counting the hbomberguy (who is notable enough and also has his own wikipedia page) 17 million views youtube video for which Internet Historian was in part the subject of, and the multiple other sources that, although not exhaustive in coverage, this coverage is still beyond triviality, as Historian was a big part of these stories: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability".
 * Plus, the fact that Internet Historian's videos all range between 1.5 and 35 million views (with no video below 1.5 million), sufficiently covers notability for both of the requirements for entertainers. Ludensg (talk) 06:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * to clarify again, views do not matter. BTW the Forbes article can't be used because it is made by "Senior Contributor". the other sources aren't bad, thank you for adding that, but they don't really talk much about Internet Historian, just a video and some quotes so i still don't think this meets notability. Password  (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * figured out the pinging btw Ludensg (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I needed to figure out the Forbes senior contributor bit, so for others for clarity so much as I understood: Forbes senior contributors are not permanent forbes staff and are external to Forbes itself, and are not considered reliable sourcing for the purpose of Wikipedia. I used this. If this is a wrong understanding of the situation please correct me. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added more sources and a reception section. Ludensg (talk) 06:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm happy to strike this if another user does a WP:BEFORE and finds much better WP:SIGCOV on the channel. And firstly, it's awesome that someone put good time and effort into setting up this article and I think that is great and should be salvaged if possible. But unfortunately in its current state, the article's sourcing strikes me as indicating a non-notable subject. As stated above and at WP:NYOUTUBE, views do not matter if WP:SIGCOV has not been provided on the subject; something can be popular and not notable for encyclopedic coverage (see WP:ITSPOPULAR). Sources [1]-[3] are primary sources. Of the remainder, some are articles that in essence just summarise the content of a video ([4],[6]) or provide trivial mentions ([5]). Some of the sources are from reliable outlets. Others are not: Critical Hit is not considered a reliable source under WP:VG/S. At any rate, the way in which the subject is addressed in the sources provides little significant coverage or commentary about the channel itself in contrast to the things that the channel has talked about, which means that it is not really what I would consider 'reception' of the channel. That leaves whether the Plagarism and You(Tube) video by Hbomberguy makes the channel notable, either the video itself ([8]) or the articles about it ([7],[9],[10]). That coverage itself is pretty much just through the lens of the video about trends of plagarism in the video essay community. Whilst the video in question may very well be sustained critical commentary, it's not a reliable source about the subject generally as per WP:YOUTUBE-EL. It's fundamentally a primary source being a publicised opinion about the quality of the channel's research, and that is already handled on the Hbomberguy page. So as I see it, there are no sources that generally provide reliable secondary coverage of the channel as a whole, the creator and their background, and mainstream reception of their work by reliable sources. That suggests it falls short of WP:GNG in lacking significant coverage and well short of WP:ENT in lacking any coverage of their constructive contributions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet,  and Australia.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  12:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete I concur with 's analysis of the sources in the article already, I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE beyond similar articles that only discuss a single video or the hbomberguy plagarism video, although there may be something that I haven't found. Nothing that would count as passing WP:GNG or WP:ENT Shaws username  .  talk  . 15:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, . A search of Newsbank database found a single brief mention of the subject in The Santa Fe New Mexican. I can't find sufficient WP:RSs to even produce WP:THREE. Fails WP:BIO. Cabrils (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails notability guidelines: not enough GNG sources found. Toadette  ( Let's discuss together! ) 19:54, 3 March 2024 (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.