Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Cenat (2nd nomination)


 * 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) ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 23:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Kai Cenat
AfDs for this article:


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

Nothing's changed from the AfD 2 months ago made by. Lots of fluff pieces. Fails GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete again? we just deleted this one. Same as last time; it seems most sources now are "meet the stars nominated for awards" articles, so brief mentions. Most aren't even in RS; the yahoo news is from one37pm, which is about as reliable as it sounds. Yahoo is basically a site that reposts anything and everything online. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have seen no indications that One37pm isn't reliable. From my readings on Variety, it seems to be owned by Gary Vaynerchuk as part of Gallery Media Group. It could also be argued this Dot Esports piece covering him in depth is a weak WP:GNG pass.  Célestin Denis (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the previous arguments proposed by Praxidicae in the first AfD was that there wasn't in depth coverage about the subject. Now that there is that coverage, why shouldn't Kai Cenat warrant an article? Unless the sources are deemed by a community census to non-reliable, we shouldn't rush into deletion of such an article. Social media entertainers are often subject to heavy misinformation because of the alternative sources fans use for information on the subject and I think the Wikipedia community should be a lot less severe towards notable entertainers in order to let verifiable information circulate on the subjects. Célestin Denis (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The amount of YouTubers and Twitch streamers who would pass WP:GNG in any other context that I've seen be deleted or draftified is ridiculous. I've had to face attempted speedy deletion, AfD or draftification for every single social media entertainer article that I've created and I'm starting to sense a pattern. Unless we as a community come together to recognize the notability of entertainers and establish precedents for such articles, we might be enabling the circulation of misinformation online. Célestin Denis (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Coverage is coverage. I mean you won't find articles on twitch streamers in the NYT, we'd have to vet certain sources as RS over at the discussion place for such things. Til then, we can only play with the tools we have. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't know if this helps Kai Cenat's claim to notability but I just found another in-depth piece on Kai Cenat on French video game journal Jeuxvideo.com Célestin Denis (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * According to WikiProject Video games/Sources it is reliable so that should count unless standards had dropped significantly since it was placed there.--65.92.162.81 (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for this, this is a great addition to Kai Cenat's claim to notability, I can't believe I've never checked this before. According to the WikiProject, Dot Esports is also considered a reliable source which would make the extensive coverage of his career (I found about 15 articles from Dot Esports where Kai Cenat is the primary subject) a GNG pass. Additionally, I've found other articles from other reliable video game sources such as Kotaku, Inven Global and Game Zone . Célestin Denis (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet,  and New York.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep this version is improved over the version deleted two months ago. The French video game journal source and the One37pm source appear to be enough for a weak pass of WP:GNG.  Frank  Anchor  10:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep because a few months can make a big difference when it comes to internet stardom. There is a massive volume of coverage on him on a few online publications, and he is also getting mentions in more mainstream media like this piece. He may not have been notable a few months ago, but being one of the most subscribed streamer on Twitch has to count for something. This may not be a formal criteria, but Cenat clearly belongs on List_of_most-followed_Twitch_channels and I don't know why he's not on it. The top 9 names on the list all have Wikipedia pages. There are at least 50 articles just about him surpassing another Twitch user to become the most subscribed English speaking Twitch user. These may all be low quality sources by conventional standards, but the sheer volume has to count for something. Chagropango (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the new sources cited in this discussion and the ones in the version that appeared before this AfD. I'd even argue that this leans towards a speedy keep per criteria #3 which aptly applies to Onel5969's inaccurate rationale for deleting this article. Not to assume bad faith, but to argue that "nothing's changed" from the previous AfD despite the vast differences in sourcing from the previous version to now is quite erroneous - especially with the ongoing DRV that's already leaning towards the consensus that the G4 deletion was a mistake. Not to mention, not specifying which references are so-called "fluff" and why. Also, the improvements Célestin Denis made here could make a good example of WP:HEY. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just another "famous for being famous" type. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate on how you believe Kai Cenat doesn't meet WP:GNG? This is the reason this article was listed for deletion. You believing that Cenat is "famous for being famous" is a subjective opinion and not in itself a reason to delete the article. Célestin Denis (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There exists more than a dozen articles where Kai Cenat is the primary subject in 5 different sources deemed reliable by the community. Some of the articles in question also go very in depth about his career and other aspects of his life. I have yet to see anyone justify this deletion with evidence of the sources being unreliable or a clear Wikipedia policy going against the article. Every single argument for deletion is made on perception, the previous deletion discussion or unsubstantiated claims. Célestin Denis (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * so is Kim Kardashian. Did we delete her article? Your comment does not include any valid deletion rationale. — VersaceSpace  🌃 19:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed with VersaceSpace and Célestin. I smell a pungent aroma of WP:IDONTLIKEIT coming from Stifle's vote. For anyone reading this discussion: if you're going to vote delete, at least put a better effort at doing so that doesn't reveal your unwarranted bias towards internet personalities. Otherwise, save the bytes for arguing over if some obscure 19th century artist needs an infobox. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion either way on notability here but this is clearly not an acceptable reason to delete an article, and the term famous for being famous doesn't even really apply here. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I have prepared a source assessment table to strengthen my claim of Kai Cenat's passing of WP:GNG

Célestin Denis (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion after the addition of a source table that may help the discussion progress. I closed the first AFD so I'll let another admin/NAC close this second one. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, appears to scrape the notability guidelines. — VersaceSpace  🌃 23:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:GNG, if just barely, but barely is all we need. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:00, 10 November 2022 (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.