- 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. As editors have said, demonstrating notability requires multiple sources. Arguments about WP:ENT are hollow as the person still must meet WP:GNG, and all claims must be verifiable. The consensus here is that this is not the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidemen (YouTube group) (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)
WP:BEFORE shows not enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Waggie (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the AfD was nominated after the account representing the group had removed without reason the best reference that the article had, which is the coverage in The Guardian - which is reliable, independent and provided reasonably significant coverage noting the surprise success of the group's book, which became a best-seller. I have now reinstated that reference. I also believe the subject qualifies under WP:ENT on the basis of having a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. The fanbase is certainly large (per secondary reference in the The Guardian coverage) and is certainly cult - I neither like football nor video games but clearly there is a huge following by young people who use YouTube as a primary means of entertainment and for whom their favourite content contributors have superstar status. The group is also a football team that draws huge crowds to their charity matches but that doesn't fit neatly into the notability of sports teams. Like the concurrent discussion on the AfD for the Chris Dixon article, the problem is that the Sidemen article will attract IP editors who will want to add trivia and unsourced material, so some level of page protection will prove necessary in due course if the article is kept. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG calls for 3-5 independent and reliable sources to establish notability. ONE good reference just isn't sufficient. I'm not sure where a "cult" following comes into this, and a large fan base cannot be established by number of followers on YouTube, as followers can easily be purchased en masse. Waggie (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does GNG say anything about 3-5 references? The bit about cult following comes from WP:ENT, which states that notability of entertainers can be established in any one of three ways, the second way being "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." How would that be established? It is a subjective measure, and in that regard the number of YouTube subscribers provides a useful indicator. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted in the Chris Dixon (Youtuber) AfD, it says "multiple sources". "Multiple" means "having or involving several parts, elements, or members", and "several" means "more than two but not many." (emphasis added). Hence the range 3-5 that I describe. Also as noted in the other AfD, WP:AUD states "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." As noted above regarding WP:ENT and a "cult following", the number of Youtube subscribers is NOT an accurate measure because they can be easily purchased en masse in order to artificially inflate one's following (a problem with treating ANY social media subscriber base as a measure of importance) and besides that Youtube is clearly not a reliable source in any case except for in VERY specific circumstances which is established in WP:RS. Waggie (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Sidemen YouTube channel was set up especially for the match, going from zero subscribers to one million subscribers in just three days, making it the fastest YouTube channel in the world, ever to reach one million subscribers." [1] The video of that match has now had 13m views. The team is playing again in a week, and if the article is still around by then, it will be interesting to see if a 27,000 spectator match helps the discussion! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on that, my inclination is to delete; the charitable event may be notable but I don't see the individual team (or their Youtube channel) as being notable. As a practical note, it may be worth waiting until after May 21 to close this AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If a celebrity has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, they're notable, per WP:ENT. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant WP:ITSPOPULAR. A large number of views/subscribers by itself is not notable, it has to be mentioned by reliable, independent third-party sources. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Waggie and other reasons above. There isn't a significant amount of news/secondary sources on them to show their notability. Despite having a large fan base, other than a book and a football match, I'm not sure the group has done many notable things outside of comedy YouTube videos. Sekyaw (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia doesn't require notables to have done "many notable things". How does this group not meet the second basis of notability in WP:ENT? That is the only test that we need to apply here, surely? If they have "a large or cult following" then they're notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that the group has a "large or cult following" is WP:OR. There are thousands of YouTube channels that have over one million subscribers and basing it off of that number should not immediately indicate a cult following, thus any notability whatsoever. Sekyaw (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No WP:OR is required, the claim of a 'large or cult following' is supported by the reliable, published sources cited in the article. Let's take a closer look:
- The Guardian:
- book sells 26,436 copies in the first three days
- Charlton Athletic FC:
- Sell-out football match in 2016 (15,000 tickers sold)
- 13 million people have watched the game on YouTube
- Fastest-growing YouTube channel ever, reaching a million subscribers in three days
- Daily Echo - (I recognise this is a local paper):
- 600,000 people watched the event live on YouTube - a record.
- This time next week it will be possible to expand the article due to the football match they are playing in this Sunday which has sold out (27,000 tickets) and this shows that there is an enduring following, rather than this being about one event.
- Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:33, 15 May 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.