Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Reneau


 * 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. Consensus is clear; the threshold of encyclopedic notability is not met in this case. bd2412 T 20:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Taylor Reneau

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prod removed without fixing the underlying issue: fails WP:ANYBIO due to lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Subscriber and view counts way below the level expected of notable YouTubers. AfC draft recently rejected due to lack of notability. Rentier (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, along with the redirect page YesReneau: from a quick scan of List of YouTubers, it appears each of them has footnotes explaining their cultural significance outside of YouTube, whereas Google searches for both these terms don't throw out anything similar. A clear case of WP:NBIO or, at the very least, WP:TOOSOON. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 18:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 18:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete there is some coverage out there, but it is not particularly substantial.198.58.171.47 (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources, no content, etc. Seems to be a fan article. Agricola44 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete we cannot have articles sourced only to the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, given potential COI, below I will address and refute central points of
 * 1) Subscriber and view counts way below the level expected
 * 2) Lack of coverage in independent reliable sources
 * without bias.

[[File:Screenshot_from_2017-12-05t07-17-47Z_of_Gregorian_Calendar.jpg
 * thumb
 * left]]
 * https://pastebin.com/krYP773y
 * Above link to CSV file compiling view and subscriber levels of 277 channels found in List_of_YouTubers article, illustrates that YesReneau's channel rises above the 25th percentile in subscriber level and 17th percentile in view count, which suggest that it meets level expected.


 * If there exists an authoritative source as to what exactly is level of view and subscriber counts expected from YouTube content creator to have their presence on Wikipedia other than data from contemporaneous articles, please refer to it before stating it hasn't been met. How else could we gauge expected level if not by contrasting with parallels?


 * Moreover it is advised to bring the article back to state from before being stubbed: Special:PermanentLink/803897636 where secondary sources to support multitude of primary ones were USA Todays and The Tabs published articles originated by journalists S. Behrens and C. Verrastro respectively.


 * While quest of editors that stubbed the article, which seem to be keeping Wikipedia in constraints of what constituted as encyclopedia historically, has been serving platform well in many cases, here it is not well grounded nor in bounds of fine line that distinguishes between constructive moderation and overextending behaviour.


 * Following search result returns over 5000 biographies of living people hosted on Wikipedia linking to USA Today, most of which are using it as secondary source:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=incategory%3A+Living_people+linksto%3A%22USA_Today%22&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=dt1ie0hybbm6knhd7xza4pr0u


 * The Tab while less popular as source, caters for two YouTube personalities' biographies on Wikipedia:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=incategory%3A+English_YouTubers+linksto%3A%22The_Tab%22&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=bqus41uv91n8pkz38y6pjo0f8


 * Above results suggest that publishers in question were historically considered reliable enough (Even though specific articles used in the Special:PermanentLink/803897636 may relatively weakly classify as reliable secondary source as per WP:No_original_research, they still do. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) to support vast supply of primary sources.
 * ΩL8 ManeValidus (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow for further discussion of the sources mentioned by.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's surprising that this discussion was relisted, given that the long "keep" argument above is entirely specious. Appears as if the moderator did not actually check it. Briefly, the commentator is arguing keep on the well-known GHITS fallacy and that the sources in a previous version demonstrate notability. They don't and that is because they were all either YouTube videos or webpages. There wasn't, and still isn't any RS. To further the argument, this panelist offers more websites and WP searches, i.e. Wikipedia sourcing itself. As I said, some simple checking, which took me just a few minutes, shows the entire argument to be specious. Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a closing administrator's (note: administrator not moderator) job to assess the consensus of the participants in an AfD, not to impose their own judgement on the available sources. The initial delete !votes cited a lack of sources. explicitly contradicted this and listed several sources. Nobody responded to this significant new claim, hence my decision to relist. The onus is now on those in favour of deleting to assess and respond to these sources. This is a discussion, after all, not a poll. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If what you say is true, then closing admins are just vote counters and we should just have a bot take over that job to save time. It is the closing admin's job to assess the evidence in each commentator's argument. For example, "keep per GNG", the most heinously abused argument in all of AfD, is not equal to some cogent, evidence-filled argument to delete. The "keep" argument I commented on is specious, which minimal checking has confirmed. (There is no onus. The job is already done.) Agricola44 (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A bit too soon. She's clearly notable and has a large following on YouTube, but Wikipedia requires substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Her College paper (Harvard) did a festure on her and an interview and USAToday ised her expertise along with two other YouTube successes for a how-tp type piece, but it's not enough according to community agreed upon standards at Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2017 (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.