Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Cahill


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Kudos to for correctly reverting the WP:BADNAC.

While a few of the !votes here can be discarded (based on their reasoning, not on the editor's tenure), we're still left with some strong arguments on both sides, fairly evenly divided. The broad participation in this AfD suggests there's not much point to another relisting right now. Hopefully by the time the article is eligible for another AfD, new sources will make that unnecessary. Owen&times; &#9742;  11:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Josh Cahill

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

So, this article was made years ago by someone who is blocked for paid editing, and there's been numerous suspected COI incidents over years.

I'm probably one of the most inclusionist editors on this website, and frankly, I cannot see any indicators of notability for this guy at all. Almost all the sources aren't about him, they're about the airline. He seems to just be a provocateur who bullies airlines for clicks. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Internet,  and Germany.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Mostly covered in non-RS, or iffy reliable sources. These are about the best I could find and . Daily Dot isn't terribly reliable (mid-level reliability) per our lists. Bangkok Post, I'm unsure... No coverage in anything we'd use as a solid RS.  Oaktree b (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: As per prop and per @Oaktree b.
 * The only sources that come close to RS were the Freie Presse (FP) articles, but those have been killed along with their archives, and it still wouldn't get it close to the notability finish line. More specifically, those seemed to be human-interest stories leaning heavily towards WP:1E.
 * The sources found by Oaktree b also seem to be in WP:1E territory, in addition to them being of the "random person had bad experience" caliber that seems to be popular by some outlets nowadays and often uses social media as a source.
 * More formally, I see issues with regard to the following guidelines (keeping in mind WP:V and WP:NEXIST):


 * Not meeting WP:BASIC due to lack of multiple reliable secondary sources
 * Not meeting any of the points under WP:ANYBIO
 * Ditto for WP:AUTHOR
 * Ditto for WP:ENT
 * Ditto for WP:SIGCOV
 * Ditto for WP:NSUSTAINED
 * And while not a formal guideline, it meets pretty much all of the observations in WP:NYOUTUBER.
 * I'd even go as far as to recommend OS deletion as a courtesy to the subject, seeing as they've gone through some length to keep their legal name from wikipedia.ConcurrentState (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, also noteworthy that the article never has been existed on German language Wikipedia even though they are German. Killarnee (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this is noteworthy at all, given that the titles of the videos listed for his Youtube channel all seem to be in English, and that neither the article being discussed nor anything I've read about him suggests that he reviews or does anything else of note in German. -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm seeing a lot of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT in these deletion rationales. We can all have our opinions about Josh's clickbait "journalism" and the confirmed COI editing of the article, but for better or worse, he is quite successful at making headlines and a casual trawl of Google News finds plenty of WP:RS including Bangkok Post, South China Morning Post , New Indian , AsiaOne , news.com.au , etc. All these articles are examples of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and thus meet WP:GNG, and they cover different incidents, so its not WP:1E either.  I also disagree with ConcurrentState's rationale above: the fact that the online copies of reliable sources (Freie Presse) have been removed does not make those sources unreliable, much less have any impact on the subject's notability. Jpatokal (talk) 05:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that they refer to him as a "german vlogger" and not by name is more than enough evidence of a complete lack of general notability. Look at the content of the articles in question. That isn't an establishment of notability, that's basic routine coverage of random incidents that happen, posted on the internet. My name shows up in a few articles. I'm not notable though. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All the articles I linked are about Josh Cahill, refer to him by name, and pass the WP:GNG test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Jpatokal (talk) 10:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll clarify, the "titles" don't refer to him by name, and instead they refer to him as a "german vlogger", before later giving his name, after outlining the controversy with the airline. That's an indicator of a lack of notability. Notable people are recognizable by name. Take any notable youtube/streamer, their names/alias appear in article titles about them, or precluded by their profession. asmongold hikaru
 * It's frankly WP:ROUTINE coverage of controversy. DarmaniLink (talk) 11:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your title theory is unsupported by the actual guidelines at WP:GNG, and you're also misapplying WP:ROUTINE: if these events were routine, they wouldn't be getting dedicated articles in major newspapers. Jpatokal (talk) 11:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Except the coverage is about the controversies, and doesn't establish his notability as a person. For a person already notable, that information might be of encyclopedic interest.
 * Even should we accept your premise, WP:GNG is just a guideline. It's not a guarantee of notability. If these events were all standalone, we would be questioning whether or not they were notable as single events (and therefore whether or not WP:1E could even apply). As concurrent put it above, it's the "random person had bad experience" cruft that gets thrown out on slow news days. From WP:ROUTINE: "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." DarmaniLink (talk) 12:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are the titles of some of the articles referenced above:
 * Bangkok Post: "Vlogger faces backlash"
 * SCMP: "German vlogger gets death threat over critical review of Singapore Airlines"
 * New Indian: "India’s Vistara Hits Back At German Vlogger Over Roster Accusations, Malpractices"
 * news.com.au: "Travel blogger ‘bullied’ by airline after posting mid-flight bad review"
 * AsiaOne: "Foreign travel vlogger considers Singapore Airlines cabin crew a 'letdown'"
 * What's the one thing in common here? That's right, Josh Cahill, who is the primary subject of all these articles, and getting death threats for posting bad reviews is hardly a "common, everyday, ordinary item".  On the other side of the coin, having bad service on an airline is indeed common and everyday, but AsiaOne is writing about it because Josh is notable enough that his opinions carry weight. Jpatokal (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone getting death threats due to reviews posted on the internet absolutely is an every day item. Also, I'll retract what I said earlier about the titles, after reviewing WP:HEADLINES. We shouldn't pay headlines any weight at all, and we should instead take into account the content of articles. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging that you were wrong, and indeed, let's look at the content. To repeat myself, all the articles I linked are about Josh Cahill, refer to him by name, and pass the WP:GNG test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
 * I'm also looking forward to your AFD of Keith Lee (food critic), one of your death threat recipients and also apparently somebody notable enough for Wikipedia :) Jpatokal (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself and us moving in circles again, the articles are not about Josh Cahil per se, they about the airline and its treatment of a passenger. As mentioned previously, it is routine coverage, with JC not as the subject but as the customer of the airline.
 * Reviewing any of your examples shows that it isn't about JC, it's about the airline, and its treatment of a passenger.
 * Also, Keith Lee has tons of coverage about him as a person, which push him just over the finish line for notability.etc. He gets daily coverage about every restaurant he tries and leaves a review at, good or bad. JC gets mentioned secondary in an article as the """victim""" whenever its something that the airline did. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Notable people are recognizable by name." There are degrees of recognizability and of notability. Few periodicals writing about Mick Jagger would think it better to title the article to include "musician Mick Jagger"; the Manfreds weren't as big as the Stones, so Paul Jones is likely to get a quick and simple description. So those recognizable by name are notable (or mere celebs), but plenty of people not immediately recognizable by name are also notable. -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably Keep. Whether you like him or not but the article seems to be relevant. If you compare |Sam_Chui his page views to the only other "aviation vlogger" here, Sam Chui, Cahill seems to be way more relevant in search traffic, which means users are interested in the subject. This source seems relevant by Corriere.it. - a rather dedicated interview. However, seeing all the edit wars and the name issue, it's probably better to have it deleted, also in his interest... but saying "He seems to just be a provocateur who bullies airlines for clicks." is not a neutral kinda view and as @Jpatokal already mentioned WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT - just my opinion. — Partisan321 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Sock !vote struck.  Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC) noting for clerical reasons, strike was previously removed by User:Jpatokal in Special:Diff/1211283295, Restored by User:DarmaniLink
 * Comment It's worth mentioning, the page mentioned by the account who made his first edit on this AFD (welcome!), Sam Chui was created by the same editor who did paid editing (User:VirenRaval89) in diff Special:Diff/950683366 (then subsequently edited by an IP with the exact same edit summaries), a few months prior to making this article up for deletion Special:Diff/982826878. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't want to venture into WP:PA w/r/t the new account (and will address their arguments on their merits soon after), but I'd be remiss not to point out that I'm getting some strong quack deja vus when seeing their misapplication of and emphasis on the neutrality principles of Wikipedia. It's very reminiscent of the talking points about neutrality and bias on the article talk page. Some examples that come to mind are here, here, here and here.
 * Edit: I see that @Vanamonde93 has closed the SPI in the meantime, would it be bad form to ask them to consider keeping it open until the AfD has concluded? ConcurrentState (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This should probably go on ANI with a link to the SPI. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ’’’Keep’’’ One of the most famous Aviation YouTubers. — 92.16.239.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC).
 * Hi! I see this is your first ever edit, that isn't a policy based argument. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm coming down on the side of delete. I looked at the links Jpatokal shared and I was in two minds, but I just feel that each of the articles is more about an airline's notable behaviour toward a passenger, not coverage the person as notable. Mgp28 (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But the reason that behavior is notable is because it happened to somebody who is notable. I don't have newspapers writing about me when I get denied entry to a lounge or dislike the onboard catering, nor do I get death threats if I complain about either on my blog. But if you want WP:RS about Josh himself, here's a dedicated profile/interview by Corriere della Serra, one of Italy's largest newspapers: https://www.corriere.it/economia/consumi/24_febbraio_18/josh-il-blogger-che-recensisce-e-fa-arrabbiare-le-compagnie-aree-controllo-anche-i-bagni-6af8dd9b-9052-4f90-b875-acb74f08cxlk.shtml Jpatokal (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree that poor behaviour by companies is only reported on if the recipient is notable. Newsapers are full of reports of people being mistreated. I think they would argue there is a strong public interest to report on such things that affect us all. The Corriere profile is more compelling. I couldn't see any indication that this was paid for, so it seems a reporter has sat down and interviewed the subject and an editor has chosen to give some space for the interview. This is just tipping me into a weak keep. Mgp28 (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, trying to establish notability with a single interview is why WP:SIGCOV of the subject per se is required. One interview falls under WP:BLP1E, more is required to establish notability. DarmaniLink (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I was unclear. I did not mean that this interview in isolation constituted significant coverage.
 * (Also to note, I didn't find WP:BLP1E helped me form a judgement for this article. There is no single event that Josh Cahill seems famous for, and the interview doesn't appear to have been triggered by any one event -- it discusses his work over a seven-year period.)
 * Rather, I started with the links Jpatokal originally shared and did not feel these were sufficient. The available first paragraphs from the Freie Presse articles cited in the article seemed promising but I couldn't read the whole articles. Other links shared on this page still didn't convince me. From the position of having read those articles, the Corriere profile tipped the balance such that I now, albeit weakly, feel that there is sufficient, significant, reliable, independent coverage that I feel we should keep the article. Mgp28 (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete – Agreeing with the above !votes; I would say keep since the subject meets notability guidelines, but the editors who pointed out that these news stories are routine motivated me to !vote delete since the subject doesn't fully meets notbility guidelines. Toadette  ( Let's discuss together! ) 07:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: the same as above. Much of the content and news articles seems quite trivial. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per . There are plenty more, similar write-ups: "Aero Dili Criticized After Posting Aviation YouTuber's Passport Online in Revenge Against Negative Flight Review", "Qatar Airways Under Fire For Banning Aviation YouTuber Josh Cahill", "YouTuber says Qatar Airways banned him from flying with them ever again because he left a bad review", "Airline Posts Passport of Popular Airline YouTuber Publicly Online in ‘Revenge’ For Negative Flight Review", etc. Each is indeed more about the airline than about our subject, and the gist of each review could instead have been published on TripAdvisor or similar. But news outlets choose to write about Cahill's experiences, and about what he does, rather than about your experiences or mine, because he's energetic, articulate and conspicuous. (You may be too. I'm not.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep these mid-sized YouTubers almost all fall under this weird on-the-fence area of notability. Whether they are notable lies nearly entirely on personal interpretations of WP:GNG. My personal interpretation, taken in conjunction with the sources already cited in this article, leads me to lean toward keep. The sources are all marginal, but the quantity of marginally acceptable sources holds some weight, in my opinion. Good day—  RetroCosmos  talk 16:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment on "He seems to just be a provocateur who bullies airlines for clicks" within the nomination: If this is being proposed as a deletion argument, then it's a worthless one (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT); but worse than this, it seems to me to infringe WP:BLPTALK. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I added "it seems" in front to make it explicit that it is an opinion. :)
 * Poor form? Sure, I'll admit that, and I'll voluntarily strike that out. However, the rest of the argument that the coverage is trivial/routine, and about the airlines rather than the individual, which you agreed with me on in your above !vote, still stands. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking it out. In my so-called "!vote", I described what I'd linked to as primarily about the airlines rather than about Cahill. But this wasn't a description of all the links provided so far. Indeed, User:Jpatokal has just now provided a little list of links whose titles suggest that they're primarily about Cahill. -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MILL and WP:TNT. Right now this just shows an ordinary person, and the controversies are most of the article. If the topic is notable, it needs to be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Notability (people), which says: "People are presumed if they have received significant coverage in  that are,  of each other, and .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." Analysis of the sources  Josh Cahill has received significant coverage in publications from nine countries: Canada: Toronto StarIndia: The Siasat DailyItaly: Corriere della SeraGermany: Freie Presse</li><li>Singapore: Today</li><li>South Africa: Daily News</li><li>Thailand: Bangkok Post</li><li>Tunisia: Nessma El Jadida</li><li>United States: indy100</li></ol> Josh Cahill received significant coverage in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024. When a person has received such sustained international coverage, it is clear he does not meet Notability (people). Sources <ol> <li> The article notes: "German-born vlogger Josh Cahill, who boasts more than 320,000 YouTube subscribers and has a reputation for unvarnished critiques, recently sparked what he called a "little revolution" after posting a video in which he showed an unkempt VIP lounge at Tunisia's airport and gave a scathing review of his Tunisair flight to Paris. He described the plane as "absolutely filthy," mocked the contents of the meal box ("Who eats muffins with cheese?") and questioned why in-flight magazines were offered when they could've been touched by multiple hands. ... Since starting his channel in early 2018, Cahill, who speaks fondly of his first airplane ride as a youngster in 1991 aboard an L-1011 TriStar belonging to the former German carrier LTU, has developed a bit of a reputation as a rabble-rouser. His no-holds-barred reviews have gotten underneath the skin of more than one airline and even generated international headlines." </li> <li> The article notes from Google Translate: "If there's a plane to avoid, he definitely gets on board. ... All documented with videos, published on his YouTube channel, seen by millions of people. For seven years Josh Cahill, a 37-year-old German-Australian who has lived in China and is now based in Sri Lanka, has been a "critic" of flights in every aspect. Bathrooms included. And, always as a critic, he does not hesitate to take risks. He including arguing with one of the most powerful airlines in the world, Qatar Airways. Angering another carrier, Aero Dili (based in East Timor), who out of spite published his passport. And denounce those who show videos that are actually promotions - undeclared - on behalf of the carriers. «I try to be the Robin Hood of aviation», he tells the Corriere during a chat." </li> <li> The article notes: "Josh Cahill, renowned for his candid airline reviews, recently offered a behind-the-scenes glimpse into his encounter with the South African carrier, Airlink, and it doesn't bode well. With a career built on scrutinizing airlines, Cahill has an impressive record of travelling on 185 different airlines over 650 flights in the last six years. About a month ago, the YouTuber found himself reportedly banned by Qatar Airways following a negative review of the Doha-based airline." </li> <li> The article notes: "A popular aviation YouTuber was banned from flying with Qatar Airways after he posted a negative review. Josh Cahill, who has 658,000 subscribers on YouTube, posted the video “THE SHOCKING DECLINE OF QATAR AIRWAYS” on August 26 following a flight from Colombo, Sri Lanka to London Heathrow with a connection in Doha. Cahill, a seasoned airline reviewer, has taken over 650 flights with 185 airlines over the past six years, regularly sharing his experiences on YouTube and Facebook." </li> <li> The article notes: "Josh Cahill, who started posting videos of airline reviews in January 2018 on his YouTube channel of the same name, told TODAY that despite previously posting more critical reviews of other airlines, this is the first time he has received such "intense" criticism, which he said is aggressive and threatening. The 33-year-old went to the police for advice but stopped short of making a police report as it was difficult to track down the account holders without a name or proper profile." </li> <li> The article notes: "Josh Cahill fliegt eigentlich um die ganze Welt. Heute Asien, morgen Amerika. Doch auch der Mildenauer darf nicht reisen. Was macht er also derzeit und hat er schon den nächsten Flug gebucht? Wenn Josh Cahill unterwegs ist, teilt er seine Erfahrungen mit vielen anderen Reisebegeisterten. Allein seinen Youtube-Kanal haben mehr als 278.000 Menschen in der ganzen Welt abonniert. Seine Videos werden millionenfach angeschaut. Seit Jahren lebt der Mildenauer ein Nomadenleben. Anfang des Jahres besuchte er Australien, Fiji,..." From Google Translate: "Josh Cahill actually flies around the world. Asia today, America tomorrow. But the Mildenauer is not allowed to travel either. So what is he doing at the moment and has he already booked the next flight? When Josh Cahill travels, he shares his experiences with many other travel enthusiasts. More than 278,000 people around the world have subscribed to his YouTube channel alone. His videos are viewed millions of times. The Mildenauer has been living a nomadic life for years. At the beginning of the year he visited Australia, Fiji, ..." </li> <li> The article notes: "Mr Josh Cahill, who started posting videos of airline reviews in January 2018 on his YouTube channel of the same name, told TODAY that despite previously posting more critical reviews of other airlines, this is the first time he has received such “intense” criticism, which he said is aggressive and threatening. ... Mr Cahill is currently travelling across Vietnam, reviewing airlines in the region." </li> <li> The article notes: "For some reason that's exactly what travel vlogger Josh Cahill did during a recent flight with Malaysia Airlines, from Kuala Lumpur to London. Cahill has a big following on YouTube and Instagram and has according to him has flown with Malaysia Airlines before. ... Cahill flies around 150 times each year obviously knows a thing or two about what makes a good flight and although the staff acted unprofessionally he'll perhaps think twice the next time he is compelled to post a bad review during a flight." </li> <li> The article notes from Google Translate: "The YouTuber, who is followed by nearly half a million people around the world, said yesterday, Monday, August 9, 2021, in a video clip in which he criticised the services on Tunisian Airlines, that the services have not improved a year after his first evaluation in August 2020, indicating that the company is considered a national embarrassment to Tunisians and is the most disgusting and disastrous trip he has ever taken" </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Josh Cahill to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC) </li></ul> Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources presented by Cunard as to whether they provide significant coverage of the person, rather than of the airline or of vlogging in general, would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen&times; &#9742;  22:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's more to WP:RS than if an outlet it WP:REPUTABLE. Looking at the specific article that is to be used as an RS is just as important. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:RSEDITORIAL some of the things to keep in mind, as well other RS-related guidelines. Similarly, WP:BASIC and stuff like WP:GNG isn't as straightforward as presented. Specifically WP:BASIC states: This means that at best a presumption is created (same applies forWP:GNG), but there are also exclusionary criteria in WP:NOT. You did bring some good sources, however. No. 1 is genuinely great and might be the best one I've seen so far. No. 2 seems pretty good as well. No. 6 might've been great if it still existed. The archive link doesn't provide enough access to properly asses it, and it has been removed from the FP's website. I was unable to locate it in the e-paper archives of FP, which suggests it never made it to a hard copy. But if you could take a look as well with the same tools you used for No. 1, that would be great. No. 8 seems to be from an outlet that some editors are uncomfortable with, per the perennial list in WP:RSPSS. I'm not familiar with that outlet, so I can't say either way if it's reliable or not. The rest (i.e., 3-5, 7,9) have the issues mentioned elsewhere, where it seems the airline is the topic. There's also the issue that they don't seem to be intellectually independent as required under WP:BASIC and instead derivatives of the primary source, that being Cahill's own videos (which has WP:BLPSELFPUB implications). The note in WP:BASIC clarifies intellectual independence as such:  Circling back to WP:NOT I see some issues with regard to WP:NOTNEWS (2nd clause) and WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Either way, it's going to be pretty challenging to create a BLP article that meets WP:BLP and MOS:BLP with the small number of reliable sources currently available, especially if we're aiming for more than a stub. Which will probably lead to future AfDs. So for now I maintain my recommendation to delete, it seems it's just WP:TOOSOON and that Cahill's contributions are better served on the individual airline articles. That said, if we do end up keeping it, then I strongly support @Bearian's suggestion to start from scratch. ConcurrentState (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (I have pasted this from talk page per edit request GrayStorm(Talk&#124;Contributions) 03:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC))
 * Thank you for reviewing the sources.  Sources  You did bring some good sources, however. No. 1 is genuinely great and might be the best one I've seen so far. No. 2 seems pretty good as well. – two good sources is sufficient for a topic to meet Notability.   WP:NOTNEWS   WP:NOTNEWS redirects to What Wikipedia is not. The section says Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not and lists four items. I reviewed each item to demonstrate that this article does not violate the policy: <ol><li>Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. – this article is not "original reporting" on a "breaking story". It is about a YouTuber.</li><li>News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. – the article is not a news report. Enduring notability has been shown through sources about the subject that were published in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024 in publications based in nine countries.</li><li>Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. – the sources do not cover Josh Cahill only in the context of one event.</li><li>Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. – this article is not about "celebrity gossip" or "all events [he is] involved in".</li></ol> Notability says: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Since the topic does not violate WP:NOT, there is no policy-based reason to exclude a subject with at least two good sources from having an article.  Starting the article from scratch   the controversies are most of the article. If the topic is notable, it needs to be started from scratch. – the article is not so poorly written that "it needs to be started from scratch". To address concerns about controversies forming most of the article, here are three options: <ol><li>The "Incidents" section can be removed.</li><li>The "Incidents" section can be trimmed.</li><li>The article can be expanded so that the "Incidents" section no longer forms slightly over half of the article.</li></ol>None of these options requires deletion of the entire article. Aside from the "Incidents" section, I consider the rest of the article to be perfectly fine in being well-sourced, due weight, and neutral. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Deletion policy says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Editing policy says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.  Cunard (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep . As Cunard has helpfully listed, there's plenty of WP:RS attesting to WP:GNG, and the counterarguments are getting increasingly implausible: if anything, it's WP:TENDENTIOUS how they keep changing (need more RS &rarr; OK there's RS but they're actually talking about airlines, not Josh &rarr; OK they're covering Josh but they shouldn't be because it's all routine stuff &rarr; well maybe death threats aren't routine but here's this other guy who got a death threat and isn't notable &rarr; well OK so Italy's largest newspaper did a profile 100% about Josh but one source isn't enough &rarr; OK Toronto Star did one too but BLP something something so let's just delete anyway) Sure, the article needs work, but that's an entirely different issue and now we have tons of solid material to work with. Jpatokal (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All of those things are true.
 * We need more reliable sources. The sources are about the airline and a controversy around it, not josh, and it's WP:TRIVIAL, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:MILL coverage, save for the interviews, which cover vlogging and do not establish general notability. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Struck the bolded !vote -- you already made it further up. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're proving my point here. Where's the policy stating that vloggers are excluded from WP:GNG? Jpatokal (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Strawmen arguments reflect extremely poorly on you. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You said, and I quote, "the interviews, which cover vlogging and do not establish general notability". I genuinely interpreted this as a claim that vloggers/vlogging is not notable, but if this is not what you meant, then what did you mean? Jpatokal (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @DarmaniLink ⬆️ Jpatokal (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'll put aside my total distaste for Josh Cahill. I'll also put aside the resentment I feel that Wikipedia is increasingly including people who according to my gut, just do not belong in an encyclopaedia. I have to go with what our guidelines say. Per the excellent analysis by Cunard, when applying the general notability guideline to the coverage of the subject, it is rather irrefutable that Josh Cahill meets the standard of notability for inclusion. Do I like that the coverage out there of an airline blogger is sufficient to justify an article? Not really. But this is not about what I or anyone else likes. It's about whether or not the article subject meets our relatively low bar of biography notability. He does. Therefore, the article should not be deleted — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard. Though I agree that the subject does not feel notable, I believe it has been thoroughly demonstrated that it does pass WP:GNG. popo dameron  ⁠ talk  00:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete I watch Josh Cahill on youtube, after reading all of the arguments to delete or keep, I am of the opinion that it fails WP:GNG -- Devoke  water  12:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. As user MaxnaCarta explained succinctly above, our job here is to separate our personal feelings on the subject from the amount of information out there (based on reliable sources). While he is clearly not someone you would see in an encyclopedia twenty years ago, he has clearly amassed influence (and coverage) through his social media reach. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC).


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.