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 no consensus. There seems to be an even divide about whether the available sources are sufficient or not to meet out notability guidelines and since there has been good participation and extensive discussion I don't see that relisting will make consensus more likely to form. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LeafyIsHere[edit]

[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)

Declined speedy, as there are credible indications of significance and RS. Procedural nomination. decltype (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. decltype (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. decltype (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Metro is an awfully unreliable source that will report on anyone, and is unreliable per WP:RS/PS. Hollywoodlife speaks for itself, Dexerto is unreliable per this RSN discussion and is used 3 times, so that leaves Insider and HITC. The insider article is garbage gossip "controversial YouTuber returned to the platform after two years of inactivity to make fun his online nemesis after his girlfriend made an OnlyFans" and Insider isn't a listed RS, not sure of discussions surrounding it on RSN but will check. HITC is garbage gossip along the lines of The Sun or The Metro. So if these sources are all we've got, then this AfD is a hopeless delete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without meaning to spam links, here are a few more including Gizmodo and Monsters and Critics: [8] [9] [10] [11]. I think that this person has had a siginifcant impact on online culture (the level of coverage prooves this), and therefore should have a place in an encyclopedia, whatever they are famous for. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[8] is okay-ish (though not "extensive" as you say, 4 paragraphs + 2 short sentences), [9] and [10] are not good sources, [11] is fine. Overall, you've linked 11 sources, of these only 2 are possibly decent, others are gossip and/or listed at WP:RS/PS or WP:VG/RS as being unreliable. The question is: is this substantial coverage that gives rise to notability warranting an article?

His only notable trait is generating controversy back in 2016-17 by bullying people with disabilities, and hence gaining some coverage in tabloids / gossip media, but he has no substantial, significant or persistent/continued coverage in reliable sources. If we gave every bloke who decides to be insulting and get featured in tabloids an audience, the wiki would be packed. I'm not saying everyone obnoxious shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but you should at least be notable for it, rather than have 15 minutes of fame (in non-RS) in 2016 then disappear. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ProcrastinatingReader, I know this is separate to any guideline, but this person has 5 million subscribers and prior to it being taken down there was a video on the topic of him with 37 million views. This is not some troll that was popular in small circles for 15 minutes then disappeared. If you ask any 15-25 year-old guy in the English speaking world I guarantee they would have at least heard of him. I at least used to talk about his antics with my friends in 2016-17. This explains why online tabloids are still writing about him 4 years after he came to prominence. I think that the issue with people like this is that everything about them is on social media, in this case YouTube, so it can't be sourced on here. But I think if we do have some sources to write an encyclopedia entry for someone we should have an article on them. Because I think that a person that has had his level of impact and interest should have an article in an encyclopedia. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of popular people, household names in fact, get deleted on here, with better sources than this. SSSniperWolf was deleted a few months ago. We regularly chuck out YouTubers who don't meet notability policy. Far more popular household names than this guy have been deleted. Just last week we discussed a DRV about an actress ranked top of her industry with hundreds of millions of annual views, yet 3 AfDs went for delete. This individual may be 'popular', but it doesn't make him notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word, and it doesn't make these sources reliable. We may have a difference of opinion, but I appreciate that we've at least discussed reasons for our respective viewpoints.

As for the other arguments made here, they're objectively weak. In theory, per !vote, I'd hope the closing admin dismisses arguments that simply state "meets GNG" without even attempting to discuss the reliability (or lack thereof) of the sources presented. Much of the arguments here are "is popular", "is notable due to YouTube drama", etc., without any reference to actually discussing reliable sources supporting their statements, and such comments appear to show unfamiliarity with what "notability" means on Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last comment, but I just found this: [12] Vice source. This one is in depth and I think is a slam dunk for notability. He was also mentioned in this book [13]. I think he is notable and passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Keep, the subject here qualifies WP:GNG by virtue of being the issue of many reliable news articles, as mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levixius (talk • contribs) 21:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete non-notable YouTuber, doesn't pass WP:GNG. My rebuttal to presented sources is above. They aren't reliable, and we consistently delete articles from people who have coverage in these kinds of sources but not wider, actually reliable coverage. If we gave everyone an article who gets featured on The Metro or other celebrity gossip sites, well, this encyclopaedia would be a dump. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the sources were wholely that, he did get a pretty extensive article from Gizmodo which is considered a pretty reliable source and a bit of coverage from local news. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Also side-note, while it doesn't pertain to Wikipedia much, but Leafy is definitely notable at the moment due to YouTube drama. Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A notable, but controversial YouTuber who, IMO, loves lashing out at anyone while playing video games. Anyway. With sources indicated by AlessandroTiandelli333, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — although the sources provided here should be used within the article. Passes GNG. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sadly another case of a person becoming mildly notable for their online shenanigans.★Trekker (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This person definitely passes GNG. I for one am tired of the ridiculous superiority complex Wikipedia has for stuff like this. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Leaving out the fact that I find Leafy to be among the bottom-of-the-barrel content creators with no actual talent, I fail to see how this article is worth keeping. Two sources does not and should not make something automatically notable - give me significant coverage from several reliable publications. Most of the sources that have been provided above are of abysmal quality and shouldn't be anywhere near the article. This is easily something that fails the notability policy. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 04:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this Vice source. [14] That put together with the Gizmodo and local news is enough to pass WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namcokid47 is just a person who wants everything to be deleted as a clean-up by the look of his history. 176.218.42.235 (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I pinged for this? Just to waste my time? Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 21:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Notable Youtuber, plenty of sources are available. 176.218.42.235 (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft - I never wanted to remove this page in the first place, i added the deletion template just to see out what others think of it. My personal takeaway originally and still is to move this page into a Draft. Yes i can see LeafyIsHere having potential for existing on Wikipedia, but the article only has 3 references, and it barely has any text on it. I'd recommend moving this article into a Draft, and then when the page gets more References, and gets more expanded, then it can have it's article, now i think it's missing qualification when it comes to info on the page.PolePoz (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless someone improves to article very quickly, this is really the best case scenario any of the “Keep” arguments can hope for. It’s a poorly sourced WP:BLP focused largely around controversy. It’s not appropriate for it to be in the main space as is. We handle BLPs differently than we do old 90s video games, - We don’t just keep it and hope someone cleans it up someday. Hopefully the closing admin is more familiar with BLP policy than much of the participants here so far... Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While notability can be of the good or bad variety, I am of the opinion that the sources shown violate WP:SUSTAINED in that they are all flash in the pan publicity stunts that are not indicative of lasting notability as is the case with many articles of viral internet personalities. Wikipedia shouldn't fall for the same tactics that made them go viral in the first place._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:50, 12 July 2020 (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.