Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackity

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. Analysis of sources demonstrates that WP:GNG is not met. This AFD result isn't a prohibition of an article on this subject in the future, just a consensus that, at this time, it's not possible to establish notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quackity

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This YouTuber does not meet WP:GNG. Nothing pops up in the reliable or situational video games search engine. Although there is WP:SIGCOV of this person in Dot Esports, this is only just one source and that is really it. Notability requires significant coverage in multiple sources. The IGN source here is a passing mention at best, and I couldn't find anything else with a quick Google search. Sparkl^talk 05:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Entertainment, Internet, and Mexico. Sparkl^talk 05:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I think he may be notable enough, but if sources are this weak, then the best option is to delete. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage from Dot Esports is reliable, independent, covers him in depth, and offers a great claim of significance towards Quackity's notability. The issue here seems to be that coverage in Dot Esports isn't in itself enough to support Quackity's passing of WP:GNG, which is a fair point. This absence of other reliable coverage could be debated with the Newsweek article. Although there is no consensus towards the reliability of Newsweek past-2013, I do notice that the consensus established that reliability should be evaluated on a case to case basis. Perhaps we should debate on this aspect. The IGN article, although a passing mention still asserts him as a central figure of the movement the article focuses on, as does this article I have found in the Washington Post [1] Célestin Denis (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, there were three Dot Esports articles sourced in the page before this article was nominated for deletion. I found a DualShockers article that also gives him WP:SIGCOV. It's listed as situationally reliable on VG/RS (I actually participated in the discussion), and it seems decent enough to establish notability. Also, he was listed as one of the most discussed gaming personalities on Twitter from Business Insider, which should be a decent credible claim of importance. If I find more sources this week I'll post immediately, but for now, I vote keep. PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current references are insufficient for WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:NCREATIVE. GNG states that Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. The three Dot Esports pieces are published in a short span of six months by a single author, Kacee Fay, these are not three sources but only a single reference. One piece is a routine announcement based on Quackity unveiled the announcement on his official Twitter account, two of the paragraphs provide general details on the show instead of Quackity. Therefore, IMO per WP:GNG one of the pieces falls under: moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. Nevertheless, even if it's generously assumed that Dot Esports meet WP:SIGCOV it counts as one source, not three as another user suggested. Dual Shocker is a situational/marginally reliable source, there isn't consensus for general reliability so I don't think it could be used to count as a full source in establishing notability. Moreover, it is an announcement column that opens with Quackity has made an announcement, it covers the YouTuber's Dream SMP, routine details, and speculation, IMO it is a minor news story/announcement column failing WP:SIGCOV. Further, passing mentions might assert importance, but that does not lend to counting towards GNG. The IGN source is two mentions and trivial, whereas two references from Newsweek, a marginally reliable source, are debatably-RS and non-SIGCOV. The first is an announcement based on a Tweet, then an overview of subscriber count; the second one covers Quackity in two paragraphs, with the second being quotes, obviously too short for WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, Business Insider is trivial mentions based the 10 most tweeted about gaming personalities of the first half of 2021, that indicates popularity but it is not synonymous with notability, Insider is also a marginally reliable source for non-culture related content per WP:RSP, this appears to be a media piece, not a culture one. Thus, one source does not result in WP:GNG met, I also do not see WP:BASIC satisfied. My WP:BEFORE only found trivial mentions and non-RS sources, unfortunately. VickKiang (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I think this article should stay personally, unfortunately I vote for Delete as per @VickKiang. If sources can be found, then this article should stay, but all sources given are extremely trivial. Zekerocks11 (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VickKiang. The Esports reference is questionable, but being generous, it's one source. The others are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.