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. WP:SPA IP !votes and opinions of low-participation editors are discounted for lacking a grasp of Wikipedia's policies for inclusion; the remaining participation evinces a clear consensus for deletion. In the interests of preserving information, however, I have redirected the title to the personal life section for his more notable father, Matthew Fosh. BD2412 T 00:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Max Fosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fosh currently isn't notable as either a YouTube personality or a politician. This page was deleted after a successful proposed deletion in March (log) and a more recent proposed deletion was removed, on procedural grounds due to the article's subsequent recreation rather than on a claim of notability. The current state of reliable source material relating to Fosh comprises routine election coverage and coverage of his YouTube hijinks, rather than coverage of Fosh himself. The details about Fosh contained in that coverage do not amount to significant coverage required by the general notability guideline, with no publication going into significant depth for even a cursory well-sourced encyclopedia article to be written about him. WP:NYOUTUBE tells us that YouTubers in deletion discussions are usually expected to additionally meet criteria from WP:ENT. I don't think there is evidence to support his meeting those criteria either. In terms of the size of his audience, WP:NYOUTUBE tells us that only 22% of deletion discussions about a YouTuber with a number of subscribers in the same range as Fosh's result in the article being kept, so I don't think that his number of subscribers qualifies him as meeting WP:ENT's criterion of having a significant "cult" following. As a politician, he doesn't meet WP:NPOL's requirements for being elected to political office, though if he is elected mayor of London he would. Ralbegen (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soon there will be enough media coverage to consider him notable. So I say we just leave the article. You know it's going to be created every once in a while. You can't keep nominating it for deletion. To constantly remove people's work is just abusive. There are enough YouTuber stubs that aren't constantly being removed. - LouisCartier (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee213.48.238.103 (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ralbegen (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, seems like a clear-cut case to me. Related election coverage essentially reduces him to his status as a (comparatively low-profile) Lord Buckethead-type novelty candidate, but nothing to satisfy any particular criteria. AngryHarpy‍^talk 07:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: clearly fails WP:NPOL. LouisCartier's argument above is mistaken: additional media coverage of any significance about Fosh has not grown since he announced his campaign. If any does appear, as per WP:NPOL, election coverage should go in the election article, not in separate articles for the candidates. (In the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely event that Fosh should win, we can re-create the article.) There are 8 other candidates in the election who don't have articles. Bondegezou (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. None of us have a WP:CRYSTALBALL, so we must wait until criteria are met before recreating this article. The existence of other articles that may need to be deleted is no justification for keeping this one. I would also recommend a temporary moratorium on re-creating this article, given that it's now popped up twice in the last 3 weeks, and cannot be PROD-ded. Domeditrix (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:SALTing. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following today's vandalism (see the page log), I think WP:SALTing is an absolute necessity. Domeditrix (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is not a politician, WP:NPOL is irrelevant. He is a YouTuber, an entertainer. I would consider the fact that he is a mayoral candidate a quite unique and innovative contribution and he is growing a large fan base. Salting is too drastic in my opinion. - LouisCartier (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political candidates. He is not a notable YouTuber, not a notable personality, and has not notable achievements in politics or entertainment (broadly defined). I agree with the comments above about his notability and why the article should be deleted, and possibly protected from re-creation doktorb _words^deeds 12:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neither candidates nor Youtubers are not inherently notable, and GNG's not clear. SportingFlyer T·C 15:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that the article has been expanded since a lot of the above discussion. There are some additional citations that editors may want to consider. (I'm not convinced myself that they add up to enough, but there's more than there were.) Bondegezou (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Look, I'm not experienced with the criteria, but if 22% of people with his size of following are kept I would say he should be in that 22%. He is a YouTuber running in the UK's most prominent mayoral election - and has received quite a bit of news coverage - e.g. from the Tab ^[1]. Just running for Mayor or just being a youtuber might be reason for deletion but together they might keep him here. DolphinSassoon (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep epiiiiicccccccc 92.27.126.110 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why would you delete it? He's got over 400k subscribers, he's know by far more people that many who have Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia seems very outdated in not considering youtubers as notable enough. Also if Count Binface has a page on the grounds of being a politician, the Max Fosh should too, he'll almost certainly get more votes than Binface in the election. I don't really care about your regulations, they're outdated and just bad. Leave the page up!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:598D:CD00:C502:B0A1:A7B:4764 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to the admin closing this. The article has been updated since this nomination, more than anything it looks like a WP:REFBOMB in an attempt to save the article. There are sources that mention the subject only in passing (LadBible: Frosties Kid Rumoured To Have Died Says Advert Brought Heartache To His Parents) or not at all (BBC: Hemel Hempstead voted the 'ugliest' town in Britain), alongside local news stories referring to stunts carried out by the subject (clearly trying to make news) that refer to him only as 'Former Newcastle student', 'YouTube star' or 'fake model'. This is in addition to padding out the reference list by including links to the subject's YouTube channel, Facebook, and through foreign-lanugauge links to publications referred to extremely infrequently on Wikipedia. Examples of these are wolipop (used as a reference in fewer than 20 other articles across this version of Wikipedia, no RFC regarding its reliability), nd.nl (used as a reference in fewer than 20 other articles across this version of Wikipedia, no RFC regarding its reliability) and Ulyces.co (not used as a reference by any other articles across this version of Wikipedia, no RFC regarding its reliability). Please take care to see through this obvious attempt to fool a reviewer into thinking that notability criteria have been met. Domeditrix (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin As per @Domeditrix: above, I too notice that editors, perhaps related to the Keep votes above, have rushed to fill the article with citations in a hope to make the article look sourced "enough". I can see right through it. I'm sure admins can too. But it's worth noticing what is being cited, not just the numbers of references. doktorb _words^deeds 04:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As yet unelected candidates for mayor of a city do not get Wikipedia articles on that basis per se — a person has to hold a notable political office, not just run for one, to be notable on political grounds, and the idea expressed above that political candidates aren't politicians, and thus can't be measured against NPOL at all, is a laughable non-starter: preventing articles about unelected political candidates who don't pass any other inclusion criteria independently of the candidacy is precisely the point of NPOL, so trying to argue that political candidates aren't subject to it is doomed to fail. And the number of subscribers that a person does or doesn't have on a social media platform have absolutely jack spit to do with our notability criteria in any occupation — the notability test hinges on attention from real media, not from social media. But the references here are all either unreliable sources or glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things, which is not how you source a person over WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to pass any specific notability criteria — we're looking for reliable source coverage about him, not just any web page people can find that happens to have his name in it. And anybody who thinks that "if somebody else has a page then this person automatically has to have a page as well" is strongly advised to read WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, specifically the parts about how (a) the pages may not actually be genuinely equivalent, because there may be different circumstances and different sourceabilities, and (b) WAX arguments can backfire by causing the other article to be nominated for deletion too. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:GNG failure is still apparent in spite of the refbombing of passing mentions and articles that don't even mention the subject Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He is a notable YouTuber. Sahaib (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per connection to realjamesh :) 194.76.238.231 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above IP editor appears to be associated with mass repeated vandalism of the article today. Bondegezou (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify To me, it seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. If he wins, yes he will be covered a lot. But I'd wait until we see the results. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, I don't think it takes a WP:CRYSTALBALL to say that he won't be the next mayor of London... AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think hes notable enough as a Youtuber, though the article certainly needs work to be less focused on the mayoral campaign. Especially his Fashion Week stunt and the recent BBC application story got enough coverage to justify an inclusion under the "unique or innovative" criteria. Actually improving the article seems more productive than constant deletion discussions and inevitable re-creation. jonas (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and Bearcat's thorough analysis, and fully support WP:SALT per Domeditrix observations. Also, and because this has come up in several AFD debates lately, the argument that social media followings, such as YouTube in this article, equates to WP:ENT criterion: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following needs to be revisited in my opinion. Frankly, I think the WP:ENT policy guidelines should outline that social media followers ought not be considered to meet criterion #2 since the number of followers can be manipulated through the purchase of online websites. This is somewhat touched on in WP:NYOUTUBE, but editors insistent on inclusion of these social media stars continue to point to, and rest their case solely on WP:ENT criterion #2 whether SIGCOV in multiple RIS is available or not. Megtetg34 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2021 (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.