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 keep. There was a lot of back-and-forth, but since the last relisting there appears to be overwhelming consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SiIvaGunner[edit]

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

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

Not sure how notable this actually is -- seems to be fleeting mentions at best, doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER imo Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In WP:ENTERTAINER, "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." SiIvaGunner definitely meets this requirement. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On a separate note, there's a scholarly mention here. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Far from "Definitely" (if that were the case all youtubers w 300k subs would have their own article)... Regarding your "Scholarly mention", see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. In any case, my gripe is that even in the Rses that Silva is mentioned in (and not all sources cited are RSes, mind you) it's just a one-liner that doesn't establish actual notability. Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I can't really provide a reliable source that SiIva has a cult following, but it's still true. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relevantly: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To just say "it's still true" even if you can't prove it doesn't hold water here. Unfortunately the sources you've provided here are either not RS, or one-liners, or both. There is no in-depth enduring third-party coverage of him in reliable sources. Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The We Are Number One song that became popular back in 2016 was first remixed in SiIvaGunner's YouTube channel, and it seemed to gain a ton of popularity afterwards before becoming an internet meme of its own. SiIvaGunner also has a fairly active fan wiki, although I don't know if that's sufficient proof that the channel has a "cult" following. Matoking (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nuff said... Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"GiIvaSunner" is the former name of SiIvaGunner. This is explained in the article. They are not "not the same guy". On a related note, SiIva is a group, not a person. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my bad, I meant GiIva/SiIva isn't the same as Gilva/Silva (what I quoted)---it doesn't matter in any case, because the same concerns remain inre notability. But I'm not going to spend any more time on this, we'll just let the AfD process play out Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. We think that it's worthy of being kept.VGPCVGCP (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, and apologies if this is a stupid question, wouldn't a large amount of small mentions collectively add together to have the same worth as a few major mentions? Also, in the above sources, there are at least 2 that can be considered to be primarily covering SiIva (namely the Kotaku and Dailydot articles) and the Gallery Aferro mentions aren't really "trivial". Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've done some good work and contributed to a bunch of Good Articles -- so you should know that, no, a large amount of trivial mentions aren't the same as a few major mentions. In fact, even one in-depth non-trivial mention would override a hundred sources' worth of trivial mentions.... And although Kotaku and Daily Dot are generally considered RS for pop culture, the Daily Dot one defo is a trivial mention, and the Kotaku one doesn't far much better---it's just describing the channel... Same for Gallery Aferro, just a boilerplate one-liner. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that the article has been significantly expanded since it was nominated for deletion. But it's just more primary sources being cited and peppered with some original research like "Due to the channel's frequent upload rate, occasionally reaching as many as 24 videos a day, many fans of the channel avoid subscribing to it." Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, although I didn't personally add that. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC allows "small mentions", but draws a line between "not substantial" and "trivial". 2, 11, 8 and 9 above fall into the latter for me. Though, I'm not going to comment on the actual AfD since I don't want to do a BEFORE right now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, considering the amount of actual music groups and well-known figures who have contributed to or acknowledged it, it feels like it's worth an article. In 2017 it wouldn't be, but it's grown enough and caused enough changes in the remix community that I don't think the article deserves to be deleted. Doesn't mean that the article can't be improved, though. Minindo (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the relisting, I'll restate my arguments in support of Keep here:

Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Omegafalcon. Dronebogus (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just troubled by the flimsy rationales for Keep so far (not to mention that the sock went out of the way just o !vote)--one wonders Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:36, 13 June 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.
Category