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. If you want the article userfied for you, drop me a note on my talk page/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MrBossFTW[edit]

MrBossFTW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I'm unaware that there is a clause in WP:GNG which says that anyone with lots of social media subscribers is notable enough for Wikipedia. Almost all the citations in this article relate to the briefest of namechecks in tech articles about a GTA 5 update. His leak of a license/serial key was again only briefly mentioned in a single sentence. The substantive 'coverage' is self published on YouTube or Twitter. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the bit about the license key MTV wrote an entire article about ([1]) and Kotaku did provide coverage of it, listing him as a notable example ([2]). (In the MTV article) While he is only mentioned by name once, but it is clear that the rest of the article is talking about him. Also, International Business Times has showcased his content multiple times, discussing his videos and other news regarding GTA 5 updates (in google I was able to find dozens of examples, like [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] - and those were only the first two pages of results). Additionally, how is the majority of the coverage self-published? Only 4 of the 28 sources are from YouTube ([11][12][13][14])(two of which is for stats on YouTube - even PewDiePie has those - i.e. [15]) and 1 from Twitter ([16]) which was a screenshot of a stats screen) for a date. If you would like the bit about his channel growth removed or have the one YouTube citation there (or Twitter/YouTube one in info box) replaced with ((fact))/((citation needed)) templates, I would happily do that. As for the "briefest of namecheck" bit, the only references matching the "namecheck" bit slightly were The Guardian (but would consider it listing him as a notable example), Morning News USA (but they reference an article mentioning him in more detail - sort of as a summary I guess?), and Blasting News (this one discusses his content for 3-4 paragraphs - or roughly 30% of the article). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You almost seem to be agreeing with me, but coming to the opposite conclusion. I'd go as far to say, as well as not meeting WP:GNG, this is a WP:ONEEVENT instance. Sionk (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In most of the sources provided, they seem to be less about him, and more about Grand Theft Auto 5, or his own first party sources. I'm not sure which of these is supposed to prove it meets the GNG... Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as although this isn't usually my field subject, I'm inclined to believe that there may be enough for an article relevant to the video games subject. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Which ones do you feel help meet the GNG in particular? Not sure what's fueling your inclination here... Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgot to ping - SwisterTwister. Can you clarify? Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is not as strong of an article as we usually examine, but for the subject, I know there are often some leniencies on what can be considered enough. I wouldn't object to a Userification. SwisterTwister talk 03:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister - I don't mean to badger you, but I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. It's so vague you could literally say that about any article in existence. That sounded more like you were answering a question about how AFD works in general. That doesn't explain your stance on this particular subject at all. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the refspamming above does not prove notability. The MTV article is extremely short (5-6 sentences) and is mostly about the foolish act of publicly showing an activation code and getting it stolen in the process. Not exactly a detailed bio here. Most of the rest of the sources listed are not significant coverage about him - they're articles about Grand Theft Auto 5 that essentially use him as a source. For example, many of the sources spammed above are like this one. This source does not provide significant coverage about "MrBossFTW". If you read it, you see its says almost nothing about him. It's all about tips about playing GTA5, some of which are from him. This is not how we prove notability on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These sources seem enough to warrant an article about him. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Adityavagarwal Which sources in particular help the subject meet the WP:GNG? As I pointed out, most are not actually focused around the subject. Please don't just automatically believe someone just because they slap 15 links in their statement. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources to me all seem to be a matter of name-dropped but not in-depth coverage from what otherwise as the secondary sources. If there's a list of well known YouTube streamers (which we'd have to be very careful with), he'd be on it, but not as a standalone. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: The only list that I am aware of myself is List of YouTubers, but it requires that the entities (be they individuals or another type of channel) have a Wikipedia page or they would be reverted. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closer In the event that it is deemed the consensus to be that this article is not worthy of inclusion at this time, I request that a deletion alternative (userfying or moving back to draft namespace) be taken into consideration so that in the event that more coverage is discovered or written, the draft could have this information added to it and be resubmitted to AfC. In the event that that is the chosen course of action, I would not move it to the article namespace myself and would take the AfC route. I will continue to monitor for information at this time and will continue to do so for the remainder of the time that I am an editor on this site (the foreseeable future). In the event that nothing comes up by the end of that time, I would simply request deletion. Of course, if that is not ruled the consensus (that this article is not worthy of inclusion at this time) by the end of this discussion, please disregard this comment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To answer the question I think you were making in your nomination, Sionk, a large number of subscribers on its own is no grounds for establishing notability. I have written an essay on the subject at Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability and am seeking an edit to WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES to say "Though YouTube subscriber counts do not contribute to a subject's notability, most YouTubers with fewer than 1,000,000 subscribers and no other other claim to notability have not received sufficient coverage to be kept at AfD." Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The references are all of mentions of him, or feature him. None were about him. Fails WP:GNG. Rightly or wrongly, common outcomes do not support subscriber count on its own as a measure of a large fan base or cult following under #2 of WP:ENT - see my comment above and link to essay. Unfortunately perhaps, YouTubers seldom gain much attention from the mainstream media. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see any in-dept coverage in the sources, only passing mentions. That's not enough to pass WP:GNG or warrant a article. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage about MrBossFTW to meet WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Sergecross and CSC. --Izno (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article fails WP:GNG because there is no significant coverage of the subject, just passing mentions. Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG as articulated repeatedly above. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails notability. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:20, 22 September 2017 (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.