Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W2S


 * 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 CSD G5. Article was speedy deleted as part G5, creation by a banned or blocked user. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)  scope_creep Talk  10:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

W2S

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Noted Youtuber but insufficient coverage. Some minor coverage. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Spam target. No WP:SECONDARY ref's. No standalone notability outside group.  scope_creep Talk  23:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect. also some are passing mentions, there are nothing to be merge. 79.118.16.10 (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: He seems to have gathered enough significant coverage from reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Some sources include:, , ], , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Not including the many sources that talk about him and the Sidemen. However, the article really needs some serious work. - Brojam (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: As per WP:NEXIST, there's enough out there on him. Also, while having lots of subscribers in and of itself isn't sufficient to indicate notability, but as per WP:ENT, it does lend some weight and this guy has over 15 million subscribers. - Masterpk404 (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC) —  Masterpk404 (talk&#32;• contribs) has been blocked as a Sockpuppet (see below)
 * Redirect to Sidemen, which I have already implemented once but was reverted on the basis of sources that turned out not to even mention the subject of the article (see article talk page). The number of subscribers is meaningless unless significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources actually exists which it doesn’t, on the basis of the sources in the article and those I can find. A vague wave at WP:NEXIST is similarly meaningless unless you can give us some indication of where these sources might exist. And as for the carpet bombing of sources above maybe the editor could just give us the WP:THREE that show notability because the handful I checked are no better than the ones in the article. Bottom line - it seems very likely that Sidemen are notable, and most of the best sources focus on them, but all coverage of this member specifically is trivial or unreliable or both, and so a redirect is the obvious solution. Hugsyrup 07:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I opened up sockpuppet investigation. Both User:Zaydx and User:Masterpk404 was blocked indefinitely as a sock of User:Timwikisidemen this will probably close as Redirect to Sidemen and all socks edits might also be reverted. RicherMan66 (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is ideal for redirect. I plan to do examine the references today. When its back to redirect, it will need page protection.  scope_creep Talk  09:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Looking at the article. Its been updated per [{WP:HEY]], lets examine the ref's.
 * Ref 1. Profile page, analytic, primary. Can't be used to establish notability.
 * Ref 2. Companies house profile. Non-RS.
 * Ref 3. Doesn't seem to mention him as an individual.
 * Ref 4. Name drop.
 * Ref 5. No mention.
 * Ref 6. Youtube video details Sidemen members.
 * Ref 7. Net worth reference. Primary.
 * Ref 8. Top 10. No mention.
 * Ref 9. Book on Sideman.
 * Ref 10. On the Sideman again.
 * Ref 11. Another X of Y listing. Primary and non-rs.
 * Ref 12. Nomination. non-notable.
 * Ref 13. Nomination. non-notable.

Two potential sources, one is primary and can't be used to establish notability. All of it fails WP:THREE and WP:SIGCOV. Good indication as membership of Sidemen group but insufficient for standalone article. A WP:BEFORE didn't turn up much at all as an individual. Recommend redirect.  scope_creep Talk  13:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - this article has now been speedy deleted under G5. I personally think this is a distinctly 'messy' outcome given that I'm not sure G5 even really applied (page was created before the user was blocked) and it turns out that the user who placed the G5 tag was themselves editing in violation of a block. I've raised this with the deleting admin but I suppose now we're left with the choice of waiting and trying to conclude this discussion regardless, just closing it as speedy delete, or closing it as speedy delete and then creating the redirect that it seems most people agreed was justified. I'm not thrilled about the G5 deletion though because I wanted a clear consensus for a redirect that could be pointed to in the event of the page being recreated in the future. Hugsyrup 10:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn Article has been speedied as a creation of a banned or blocked user. I will close it.  scope_creep Talk  10:43, 9 January 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.