Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludwig's subathon


 * 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. There's two somewhat independent questions here; whether the topic is notable, and whether it should be covered in a standalone article or as part of an article with broader scope. There's clear consensus here as to the first question; a large number of substantive sources has been provided. There's a remarkable lack of agreement as to the second. As merge discussion is a more appropriate venue to pursue that in any case, I'm closing this. I'd like to remind participants that notability does not guarantee a standalone article; whether to merge or not should be determined based on WP:DUE, WP:TOOBIG, and editorial judgement about what serves the reader best. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Ludwig's subathon

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

There seems to be no reason why a Twitch streamer's subathon requires its own article, as it can easily be folded into the article of the streamer himself. As a viral Internet event, it likely also fails WP:EVENTCRIT. While it was a particularly long stream, people doing long streams is fairly routine and not exactly something incredible. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Entertainment.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge Andre🚐 03:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * On what rationale? AfD is not a poll. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 05:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * per nom Andre🚐 18:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Firstly, passes WP:GNG very easily, with substantial coverage from RS's BBC, New York Times, USA Today, the Verge, and a myriad of other sources deemed reliable per WP:VG/S (see the article for those.) The event is notable for breaking the 2018 record of most concurrent subscribers on Twitch. Yes, "people doing long streams is fairly routine and not exactly something incredible," but major RS publications writing about them is not normal: breaking subscription records is not normal, and the popularity of the subathon was not normal.
 * Secondly, a 2022 re-analysis of Ludwig's subathon called it the "most high-profile subathon"; it's clear Ludwig's subathon set a new popularity and precedent for subathons. Just look at Google Trends for "subathon": the term exploded in popularity after his stream, but remained much higher than pre-March 2021, to this day. For this reason—the popularization of subathons—Ludwig's subathon passes the first criteria of WP:EVENTCRIT because it had "a signifigant lasting effect" on subathons and long streams as a whole on Twitch.
 * One more thing— I have 10 more tabs of articles from RSs to add to the article. Even in it's current state, a merge to Ludwig Ahgren would add way too much content and be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in the article. It's much better to keep it separate, especially when comprised of reliable, independent, sources with broad coverage.— PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 05:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: PerfectSoundWhatever (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
 * Note the part in WP:GNG that says: "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." A promotional event held by a single streamer would violate not only WP:INDISCRIMINATE but WP:NOTPROMO unless it had some sort of world-shattering impact, and this subathon was viral yet still a flash in the pan event. It also doesn't seem like it would be very UNDUE if summarized in a single section, which it can easily fit into. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How is the stream a "promotional event"? Livestreamers broadcast streams, that's the nature of being a creative professional; that's the medium they create and entertain on. That's like saying a musician releasing an album is a "promotional event". Or what's next, an author writing a book? Gasp, how dare they attempt to become popular and earn money?
 * Secondly, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there's no reason to delete well-sourced articles that pass GNG. All topics with Wikipedia articles do not have a "world-shattering impact", if they did, we would have much, much less than 6 million articles. Why should specially events be held to such a high degree of scrutiny? Besides, I do believe that the subathon passes the overly stringent event criteria per above.
 * Thirdly, WP:INDISCRIMINATE in no way applies here. You could use that boiler plate argument when trying to delete any article, but that doesn't mean it applies. WP:INDISCRIMINATE isn't even about article deletion / notability, it's about uncontextualized, overly-long data entries. Ludwig's subathon is just a livestream, a perfectly suitable topic for a Wikipedia article; a livestream is essentially just a contemporaneous version of a television show, nothing strange here. How is the prose in this article more "indiscriminate", than say any other article which passes GNG and whose topic did not have a "world-shattering impact" (aka most articles). — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 17:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * From the article itself: "A "subathon", short for "subscription marathon", is a type of livestream on Twitch where every time a streamer receives a subscription—US$5 donations from viewers—more time is added to a descending timer.". Doing a marathon for money is the description of a promotional event. For the most part, while many works of entertainment are done for money, the idea of being paid is not the primary focus, just an expectation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, but I suggest that the article be rewritten and tweaked to focus on the concept of “subathon” as a distinct topic. There is some interesting discussion from multiple sources about the nature of subathons as well as the health and social impacts on the participants and the audience. Ludwig’s month-long stunt is notable within the parameters of GNG, but it is far from the only one that’s been done in the influencer streaming industry. Some of the more important details from the stream itself can be summarized in one paragraph or two, to avoid undue weight and giving the impression of inappropriately promoting the influencer himself. Ludwig’s subathon can be redirected to such a section. Here’s an example of a source that talks about “subathons” broadly, while also acknowledging Ludwig’s influence on the marketing scheme: Haleth (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely all for the creation of a subathon article if it's notable, but I don't see what it has to do with this article about a specific streamer's one-time subathon. Your "keep" is misleading because it's really a "rewrite completely", which is not something an AfD can force to happen in the slightest. This debate is about the article in its current form, not its possible future form. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per 's argument., as someone who appreciates your work on this site, I honestly can't agree with your assessment that the subathon even remotely comes close to a routine event. Yes, many Twitch events do seem to border on routine coverage due to their propensity for recentism, and the idea of continuous livestreaming may not seem unique on the face of it. However, with the sheer amount of coverage about the event before, during and after the fact, Ludwig's subathon passes the event guidelines.


 * First off, Ludwig was credited for popularizing the trend with his subathon in this recent Dot Esports article from over a year since the event ended, proving that the event has had a decent lasting effect per criteria #1 - the lasting effect being that a multitude of streamers have made subathons of their own. It's just like when a musician brings a genre to the mainstream. Or for a more relevant example, how journalists cite Slowbeef as the pioneer of Let's Plays who has inspired plenty of other YouTubers to create videos of that type.


 * Also, the amount of coverage on the event already shows it passes GNG as PerfectSound and stated. This means the subathon also passes #2 of the criteria; the sheer number of sources for this one stream alone is just too much to ignore. It's not to the extent of COVID, the George Floyd protests or the Russia-Ukraine invasion, but the coverage it still gets to this day proves that it is, and will most likely continue to be notable. This may sound a bit too wild of a prediction, but perhaps when internet historians look back on the 2020s, they'll acknowledge Ludwig's subathon as one of the most significant moments of livestreaming history. Clearly if The New York Times of all places found it significant enough to discuss, then it's an event worth remembering.


 * Finally, what really dismisses the "routine" argument is how sources described it. It wasn't just a normal subathon stream - it led to Ludwig beating Ninja's record for all-time subscriptions. The sources mentioned here note that fact; most livestreams of this caliber generally don't break records, making this stand out from the pack. Also, the in-depth coverage of the NYT article contextualizes the subathon within the growth of Twitch during the pandemic, showing that it's not just some flash in the pan event or everyday occurrence. And most importantly, as aforementioned the subathon paved the way for other streamers to create their own version of the stream.


 * Overall, I believe the subathon is notable enough to justify a split from Ludwig's article. PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting. Clearly divided over Keep or Merge options. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ludwig. It's an obviously notable event but I don't think it's independently notable. I think WP:UNDUE is the correct policy to cite here, but from the opposite direction. It's undue weight to write such a long article about this event; it should be summarized more succinctly on Ludwig's main page. I'm not even sure the subathon is the most notable event Ludwig has put on and I don't think he considers it such either. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ludwig Ahgren. Axem put it perfectly so instead of copy/pasting I'll just say +1. Any non-trivia content on this topic more than adequately fits within the parent article's section. It's a stunt and it's covered in the above listed sources as a stunt within his larger livestreaming career. czar  19:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand either of your rationales, so please bear with me to try to help me to understand. What policy does this cite? (I address the WP:UNDUE later)
 * Let's take the first part of the deletion rationale that provided: "It's undue weight to write such a long article about this event; it should be summarized more succinctly on Ludwig's main page". WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with split-off articles: you could make that argument for determining how much text on Ludwig's subathon should be in Ludwig Ahgren's article, but not the article on the separate livestream. Or, that's like saying—(extreme example)—that we shouldn't have an article on the Pacific War because it's length is undue weight for World War II.
 * Another thing that said. "I'm not even sure the subathon is the most notable event Ludwig has put on and I don't think he considers it such either". What's your point here? If they are notable and pass WP:EVENTCRIT, they deserve articles. Saying we should delete an article because similar articles don't have pages yet isn't a valid rationale to delete this page.
 * said "Any non-trivia content on this topic more than adequately fits within the parent article's section". I stopped expanding the article upon the AfD, but there's much more information to be added, such as information on earnings from the stream . czar also said "It's a stunt". It's a livestream; livestreams do streams to make money, that's how it is since that's their profession. Even if you consider it a publicity stunt, that doesn't mean it does not deserve an article. WP:NOT does not prohibit publicity stunts from having encyclopedia entries, and notable ones do; hell, even notable advertisements do.
 * Thank you for reading, and please respond with policy-based rationales for the deletion of this article. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 21:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that UNDUE is not a deletion rationale. In fact, I have no policy-based rationales for deletion because I happen to not be advocating for deletion. My preference for merging stems from a desire for relevant information to be kept together whenever possible so the act of reading one single article provides said information at the proper level of detail in the proper context to understand it. Splitting necessitates a minimum amount of repetition and redundancy that I generally prefer to avoid. There are many notable things that would meet the strict criteria for articles that do not and should not have independent articles because they are more effectively covered within an existing article. For example, despite the fact that Joel and Ethan Coen have done plenty of solo work, they are both covered in a single article, Coen brothers, because 1) splitting them out individually---and possibly having a 3rd article covering them together---would have a tremendous amount of overlap, redundancy, and be difficult to maintain across multiple pages, and 2) it is far more effective to cover them both in a single article that tells their history in context with each other. Remember that we're writing articles for people to read and learn from, not to accumulate chits and awards for "most articles written" (cf. least publishable unit).
 * My rationale above questioned this event's independent notability. I think it's borderline, but it's possible that this event is only notable in the context of Ludwig himself and doesn't have notability divorced from him. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Furthermore, when all of the UNDUE detail is removed from the article, I think it will be plenty short enough to merge back to the main Ludwig article without running into UNDUE weight over there. Hence my suggestion to merge. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The content could be covered in the parent article without any loss in fidelity. It's one of the basic tenets of summary style. If the section in the parent article became unwieldy, then sure, would be worth assessing a split, but the current article's play-by-play proseline of the stream is not content that belongs in either this article or the parent article. czar  02:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The comparison between the Coen brothers is not apples-to-apples. The individual people comprise the whole of the Coen brothers. There is little overlap between the scope of Ludwig Ahgren and his subathon; the subathon is not a part of him, it's a piece of entertainment he created. It's not much different than Guitar Songs being a separate article than Billie Eilish, for example. (Narrator (song) and Squid (band) for a more obscure example, also one I wrote). It would be WP:OFFTOPIC to talk about the earnings and reception of the subathon in a biography of Ahgren, just like it would be off topic to talk about the recording of Narrator (song) in a synopsis of Squid (band). This is why they are separate articles, the scope is different. The only difference between Guitar Songs / Narrator (song) and the subathon is that the subathon was created on a different medium, livestreaming. It's medium doesn't stop it from being a piece of entertainment that is separate from the person who created it.
 * I have essentially the same reply to you. The scope of the articles is different: the subathon is not a subset of his life, it's something he did / created. Movie, TV show, and video games articles have plot summary-type sections frequently: album articles too. Why is a "play-by-play proseline of the stream" that is well-sourced an issue? WP:PROSELINE itself says that the best solution is turning proseline into direct prose or timelines, not removal of it. Trying to not WP:BLUDGEON; this should be my last reply here. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 19:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is a "play-by-play proseline of the stream" that is well-sourced an issue?
 * Because it's trivia: it's stultifying to read and imparts nothing upon the reader. If written succinctly to inform the reader, removing the repetition of X viewers on Y day, it would be a fraction of its length and show that there is nothing remarkable being said, which is why sources similarly didn't cover the event with daily updates. If you don't see that by now, I don't think this AfD is going to convince you. Based on the sources, it's a matter of time before it's merged back into the parent article. czar  20:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep The references I saw clearly involve the specific event and there are enough that the event itself is notable. An example for comparison would be The Shot, which is an article about Michael Jordan's single play within a single game within a single playoff series within a single NBA finals series within a single NBA season, showing that Wikipedia has no restrictions on drilling down into individually notable events within other events that have their own notability (had it taken place today my guess would be every one of those elements above would have their own articles). The quality or length of an article is irrelevant for an AFD when the article topic is notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge to his main article, I think is the best course. Oaktree b (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge as the best course of action. I believe the level of detail here violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS, but it can be preserved if it is summarized more succinctly. Archrogue (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge per Czar and Axem Titanium. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge per Czar and Axem. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 12:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per PerfectSoundWhatever, PantheonRadiance, and Macktheknifeau. Skyshifter   talk  14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant enough coverage by mainstream press to warrant a separate article. BBC, Kotaku, the NYT for goodness sake! SWinxy (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage is always a pre-requisite to a standalone article, but it does not mean an article should always exist when something gets a significant amount of coverage, we have to also consider whether an article would be undue for the importance of whatever it is about. In this case it could easily be merged without readers losing any important information about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The strength of the sources is more than enough to show that having a stand alone article would not be "undue" weight. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll elaborate further my !vote with an analysis of WP:NEVENT. The criteria:
 * Enduring historical significance and meets GNG or has a lasting impact
 * While it passes GNG (RSs like NYT and BBC; SIGCOV being deeply covered in NYT and Kotaku), the weakest argument in this list is it having a lasting impact. There was coverage ~2 weeks after the bulk of the coverage from ScreenRant and 10 months later in DotEsports. Realistically, a long-lasting impact would include more than just the DotEsports article.
 * Widespread impact and diverse sources
 * Diverse sources would include mainstream and non-internet-focused publications. USA Today, the NYT, and the BBC's domains cover broad news, and for them to cover an internet event like this is unusual. That is, the event was able to break through to mainstream sources. I'd say the fact that USA Today covered it strongly implies a widespread impact.
 * Not lesser coverage or limited scope
 * The coverage is not small in coverage or scope. The Kotaku article(s) and the NYT one are of medium length and go into detail.
 * Not routine coverage
 * This is the easiest one to argue against. This isn't routine coverage of livestreams, but a novel event. Livestreams do not get routine coverage. I can remember Hbomberguy's similar charity stream that got coverage and an appearance from AOC, which was also not a routine type of coverage.
 * Overall, I'd consider it to pass NEVENT and GNG. I would not be opposed to a merger, but my !vote remains a keep. SWinxy (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

UTC)
 * Keep. notable enough in its own right. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:59, 20 August 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.