Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Wighton


 * 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) Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Shane Wighton

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Goofy kid fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Extensive significant coverage by reliable secondary sources (see references for some of the many sources). Has millions of views and subscribers on YouTube: not a "Goofy Kid". Ajshul 😀 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Oh please! "Extensive" coverage by "reliable" sources??? Listing multiple non-notable sources does not add up to a reliable source for one of a gazillion people who are able to set up a YouTube channel. I suspect this is an attempt at adding an autobiography to Wikipedia. Creator also tried to add the name to List of YouTubers. Fails WP:BIO. Sundayclose (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)'
 * Last time I checked over a million subscribers and videos covered by major engineering sources is notable. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked there was no Wikipedia policy or guideline stating the minimum number of subscribers to be considered notable. YouTube is fertile ground for unknown and untalented people with some video skills to grab subscribers. And the last time I checked, sources like socialblade.com, geekologie.com, irishnews.com, British Comedy Guide, Boing Boing, hackster.io, and mikeshouts.com were not notable "major engineering sources". Sundayclose (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How about The Independent, Yahoo News, Hackster.io, the Verge?Ajshul 😀 (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Independent, Yahoo News, and the Verge are not "major engineering sources". Even if there are a few citations to a reliable source that doesn't indicate notability. Reliable sources are required on Wikipedia, but reliable sources alone are not sufficient for notability. Everyone who has a YouTube video mentioned in a couple of sources does not pass the standards for WP:BIO. Sundayclose (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you search his name on Google, you will see many results from many different reliable sources. I understand that subscribers doesn't represent notability, but he started a channel in March 2020 and has over a million subscribers and videos with over 10 million views and is covered by many different sources. Also, if you look at WikiProject YouTube/Notability, he follows the guidelines outlined there. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, if you DO look at WikiProject YouTube/Notability, you'll read this: "A frequent argument put forward for keeping the article is that a subject is notable because of their number of YouTube subscribers or the number of times their videos have been viewed. Consensus however is that this is an insufficient basis by which to establish notability." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but subscriber count can be one indicator (along with the many different articles, reddit pages, etc. dedicated to him) that he "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." (WP:ENT) The many articles from reliable sources (see references or just search his name on Google to find them), and the content within them, has also proven that the videos on his channel is unique, innovative, and prolific. Therefore, he "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." (WP:ENT). Ajshul 😀 (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're beating a dead horse by repeating the same weak arguments repeatedly, and if you continue it is considered disruptive editing. Again you have provided no policy or guideline on "number of subscribers" that qualify for notability. And you again ignore the fact that reliable sources are required on Wikipedia but are not sufficient to establish notability. Google counts are meaningless. The number of hits depends largely on how the search is worded (for example, "Shane Wighton" as separate words produces vastly different results compared to "Shane Wighton" as a single phrase); and number of hits has no relationship to quality of hits. I can Google my name and get many thousands of hits, but that in no way makes me a notable topic for a Wikipedia article. You've made your case here. Please stop repeating it over and over. Sundayclose (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sundayclose but I'd add that it might be worth stepping back a little and taking stock of the inputs here and perhaps reviewing policy - especially that highlighted by Sundayclose above, but also stuff like WP:GNG which was my original issue here. That policy is the result of consensus in the community and, while it might seem restrictive in the short term, is designed (well, intended) to mark that which is truly notable in our society - not that which is notable right here, right now. You're looking at enduring notability, not today, not tomorrow. /endlecture/ But they're right. Leave the argument to others now - you've made your case (IMHO). Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that the quantity of hits on Google mattered, just that when one searched his name up on Google, many reliable sources came up; I was unclear, I apologize. Nevertheless, you are making a very fair argument. Also, I appreciate the help... I'm relatively new as you may know and my understanding of what merits an article is obviously a little off. Thanks for the clear explanation above though. Much appreciated. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Although the article is a bit of a stub, there are enough references in there to confirm notability, including from a non-niche publication such as The Independent. Han-Kwang (t) 22:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Doing a BEFORE search I can find there is, perhaps, one reliable source, The Independent, in which the subject receives SIGCOV. I was unable to find any others. I think this falls under WP:TOOSOON. As a side note, calling another individual a "Goofy Kid" is reprehensible and offensive language. As editors here we are supposed to be largely neutral on any given topic. This "kids" engineered creations were worthy enough to be picked up by several media outlets and while that may not pass him off as notable, it shouldn't be discounted either. A year from now he may very well deserve an article because he is featured in some major media publications. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Shane Wighton meets WP:SIGCOV because of sustained coverage: Independent, Popular Mechanics, The Verge, Insider. Per WP:RSP, these sources, and the others cited on the page, are generally reliable. 2605:B100:119:50DC:6865:567C:6B36:5A46 (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC) — 2605:B100:119:50DC:6865:567C:6B36:5A46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note to closer: This is an SPA. Sundayclose (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it seems this way. I've made a bunch of edits, but for some reason it logs them each from different IP addresses. 2605:B100:119:CE9E:5929:EEC3:D10B:7A4 (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you create an account to prevent that from happening. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article needs a little clean-up and/or expansion. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG with sources indicated above. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 4 November 2020 (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.