Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wode Maya


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | [express] || 03:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Wode Maya

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable youtuber that fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. In addition, the only sources I could find were unreliable (blogs and YouTube). Eternal Shadow  Talk  23:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Eternal Shadow   Talk  23:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.  Eternal Shadow   Talk  23:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies, discussion

Hello Thank you for giving this page a chance. I have now expanded it.

Mainstream secondary sources like the Guardian, China Radio International , Taiwan News , France 24 mention Wode Maya in a non trivial way. In summary he is so notable that there is media coverage of his vlogging from Africa, Asia and Europe from at least 6 different countries. All these references and more are cited. Ear-phone (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I am planning to remove the current tag on the article.

I would like to mention that involved in my block, which the Wikimedia Foundation found to have unusual circumstances, tagged this article for speedy deletion.

- your views are welcome.


 * I'm not hugely knowledgeable about these things, but I'd like to note more broadly that he's one of the most subscribed Ghanaian youtubers and that we currently do a relatively poor job of covering those who are famous outside of the USA (note on wikiproject youtube). T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 00:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I can't comment on these matters in my official capacity as a staff member-- please be sure to ping my volunteer account in the future regarding editorial questions. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, now on my volunteer account. Here are a few remarks I'd like to make:
 * Coverage of vloggers is generally very limited in reliable sources, and as notes, it is even harder to find coverage for vloggers outside the U.S. in reputable sources, so it is exceedingly difficult for them to meet the threshold for biographies.
 * The current set of sources focus more on Maya's video content and do not discuss a lot of biographical content about him, so it is challenging to write a lot that would be typical for other biographies. The China PLUS. Les Observateurs and YEN articles are probably the best sources of biographical content here (such as about his hometown). Some of that can be used to fill out the article a bit more, and I think the notice can be removed. Overall, I think these articles provide just enough coverage to meet the general notability guideline.
 * It would be helpful to identify more sources that discuss his popularity in greater detail, especially ones that more definitively discuss his popularity as a YouTuber based in Ghana. I remmeber doing a search for these sometime ago, but wasn't able to find anything. Maybe that has changed if Maya has continued to produce videos?
 * I JethroBT drop me a line 04:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you . I have expanded the page with your suggestions i.e. including his home town & specific mention of popularity as per China PLUS & YEN. It seems as creator of the page I am not permitted to remove the tag? Please help . Yes, he is still producing videos. Ear-phone (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @ - Long time no see. Thanks for pinging me. Generally speaking, I'd say he doesn't seem too notable on common grounds, but he might be notable based on the fact that he ois one of the most popular internet personalities in a country where there are hardly any. That is just my view, however. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @ - Long time indeed. Thank you for your comment. Ear-phone (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the notability of Wode Maya, as demonstrated by the current state of the article, is at best marginal. That is, of course, not considering any sources which may exist but have not yet been cited here. I tend to agree with and  above. Of the current sources:
 * The Guardian piece mentions him only in passing and does not contribute to notability at all.
 * The China Plus piece appears to be a site that is displaying at least one of his videos, and so does not seem to be independent. Notability must be based on independent sources as a rule. Even if this is considered independent, there are only a few lines about Wode Maya and it might not amount to significant coverage.
 * The Taiwan News. piece does not so much as mention his name. No value for notability.
 * The piece from Les Observateurs de France 24 is interesting. But it is primarily about the racist video which Wode Maya  was criticizing and who might have made it. There is little about Maya's own video, and less about Maya himself. Still this is of some value. (Note, my French is quite rusty, and I used Google Translate on this piece, with all the limitations of machine translation.)
 * The EB News Daily. piece is hardly more than a passing mention, surely not significant coverage.
 * The Ghana news piece seems to me to be trivial coverage. Yes it is of significant length, and is all about Maya, but it really says only that he bought his mother a car out of his earnings, and publicized the event in video. I am not sure that this counts as significant coverage. Even if it does I am not seeing the multiple independent sources, each with significant coverage, that the WP:GNG requires.
 * Thus I don't think notability is clearly established here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you . I am writing a response detailing reasons as I do not agree with you. 17:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Beginning with the Ghana News article you write, "seems to me to be trivial coverage". Wode Maya is so popular that 'trivial' things he does like purchasing a car for his Mum makes mainstream news. The article is titled - "Popular Ghanaian vlogger Wode Maya buys....". This establishes his popularity in Ghana and as you write, the article "...is of significant length, and is all about Maya,...".

The China Plus article which is part of China Radio International, writes "Ghanaian Vlogger Wode Maya has had his videos about life in China go viral, receiving millions of hits from fans around the world." Once again the popularity aspect is noted, "...his immensely popular Youtube channel..." The principle modality for radio is audio and yes, there are relatively few written lines, but 25 minutes of audio. Mass media is not restricted to written words. Now, there is independent mainstream news of his popularity from two different countries on two different continents.

Yes, Taiwan News does not mention Maya's name in writing, however his YouTube video is the centre piece audiovisual for that article. There was no need to mention his name, in writing because it is presented via audio and as often happens with notable/popular people, they do not need to be mentioned by name in writing, their identity being revealed by other means.

For the France 24 article, you write "Note, my French is quite rusty, and I used Google Translate on this piece, with all the limitations of machine translation". Therefore, you may not be able to adequately assess this source. Nonetheless, if a notable/popular personality criticises something, it is not unusual for their criticism to reach mainstream news like it has for Maya.

You write that The Guardian and EB News Daily are passing mention pieces. Both these mainstream news sources, not originating from Maya's home country find it necessary to include Maya's perspective, precisely because he is notable.

Finally there is skewed geographic coverage of YouTubers - List of YouTubers. The Wikimedia Foundation in its statement on 3 June 2020 states, "Building power, relationships, and resources to advance epistemic justice and redress the exclusion and omission of Black, indigenous, and communities of color within knowledge systems in general and the Wikimedia projects specifically."

I therefore do not agree that Wode Maya is not notable for English Wikipedia. Ear-phone (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Just saying, that Ghana News appears to be what I like to call gossip sites, which always go on about trivial things random people do, similar to stuff like the Daily Mail. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "Ghana’s authoritative news website, YEN.com.gh (Ghana News), has been adjudged the Best Online News Portal at the 2019 National Communications Awards held at the Export Trade House in Accra on Saturday, November 10, 2019. Read more: https://yen.com.gh/137415-yen-gh-named-news-website-ghana-national-communications-awards-2019.html"


 * "What great ones do the less will prattle of" from Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare. Ultimately Wode Maya is notable and popular as mentioned in global mainstream news - regardless of whether English Wikipedia chooses to recognise this or not. The real issue is Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Besides Wode Maya, there is currently not a single Black African YouTuber from sub-Saharan Africa here - List of YouTubers, which shows undue under representation. Ear-phone (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Wode Maya does not fail WP:GNG (see the above cited multiple reliable independent - not produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it - mainstream media mentions, etc). WP:GNG states, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, ..."

WP:ENT states:

'' 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

For 1, YouTubers like Wode Maya, would fall under other productions and would not be required to be in films, television shows, etc. For 2, a large fan base is present. For 3, this is satisfied because Wode Maya has made unique, prolific contributions. YouTube is not only an entertainment site, it is possible to have education content and so on. So WP:ENT might not even be the appropriate criterion for YouTubers. However Wode Maya still meets it.

Ear-phone (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , there have been YouTubers with 5x larger fanbases have their pages get deleted, so “large fan base” does not seem to be present. Eternal Shadow   Talk  20:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , to directly quote once again as above from a reliable secondary source (cited earlier):
 * The China Plus article which is part of China Radio International, writes "Ghanaian Vlogger Wode Maya has had his videos about life in China go viral, receiving millions of hits from fans around the world." The reliable secondary source proves definitively that Maya has a large global fan base. That is sufficient. However, following your contentious logic, there are YouTubers with a lower number of fans/subscribers and total views that are deemed notable by Wikipedia and have a page on this site. Ear-phone (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , the problem here is less of the size of the fan base and more about the sources. The fact that there are sources from somewhat major reliable sources makes this borderline. Eternal Shadow   Talk  16:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * - being repetitive, as above, it's reliable sources not major sources. Nonetheless, Maya's sources are major. There is clear cut notability. The above reliable sources speak for themselves. Ear-phone (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , I recommend we both let other users render their judgements. Note that YouTube is not a reliable source. Eternal Shadow   Talk  16:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , I have not attempted or wish to prevent other users from commenting or rendering their judgement. I am fully aware that YouTube itself is not typically considered a reliable source. None of the above references cite YouTube. Ear-phone (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , the 6th citation in the article is from YouTube. I am just trying to suggest ways to improve the article. Eternal Shadow   Talk  16:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * . No, you are trying to get the article deleted. I am fully aware that the 6th citation in the article cites YouTube. Here is the context and exact sentence. "He joined YouTube on January 10, 2013. " The YouTuber Marques Brownlee has this sentence which cites YouTube, "Brownlee joined YouTube on March 21, 2008. " YouTube is a reliable source for when YouTubers joined YouTube. This use is completely appropriate. Ear-phone (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If the community decides that this is notable, then I am fine with that. There are too many close calls under guidelines. Example: Overall, I think these articles provide just enough coverage to meet the general notability guideline. I recommend that more sources be added and the article is expanded, as that will indicate a full pass of notability guidelines. Eternal Shadow   Talk  18:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , the article already meets the notability guidelines fully as indicated and sourced above. Ear-phone (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would benefit from discussion of uninvolved users, particularly from some concise !votes.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Would note the utility and usefulness of the article. As an uninvolved observer, and having been recommended and having enjoyed Wode's videos, I personally sought out further information about him and was pleased to see that an article existed. I'm convinced of notability and sufficiency of sources re: above. Rowd149 (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, as written. No objection to draftification if it is expected that the article can be expanded and improved in the future. BD2412  T 00:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Where reasonable counter-arguments to the nomination have been raised in the discussion, you may wish to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshalling your own evidence. Stating your true position in your own words will also assure others that you are not hiding a WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ILIKEIT position." Ear-phone (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Having noted the truly massive WP:BLUDGEONing of this argument that verges on tendentious editing I'm going to request in advance that any response to this !vote does not repeat sources or arguments given above. I have read the arguments and the cited articles and find them almost wholly without merit.  They betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the notability criteria or the reasons this community established them in the first place: popularity is not notability. At very best, the sources demonstrate that this is a YouTuber who has accumulated a (in the context of YouTube) rather modest profile. At worst, the arguments in favor are variations on WP:ILIKEIT camouflaged in distracting and irrelevant sources or language. There is nothing demonstrated in any of the sources that rises to the level of significant coverage that this project expects.  Perhaps this would be better-placed on the Chinese or Ghanian Wikis.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:12, 24 September 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.