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. BD2412 T 01:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaush[edit]

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

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

Fails to meet relevant notability guidelines, thorough attempts to find reliable sources for months have only provided 2 opinion pieces and a large amount of self sourced content. Deku link (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after attempting a search, I couldn't find a sufficient amount of significant coverage to write a decent biography - or even a stub - on this person (I didn't want to nominate it for deletion for myself because I didn't feel like dealing with that process today, but the subject, at this point, is almost certainly non-notable). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Simple search for the first time reveals he has a large amount of coverage from various non-published sources such as 1 2 3 4 5 6. This was after one search. There really is more then enough sources to write a neutral non-published page. This page absolutely does not meet the quality standards of Wikipedia because despite these sources being widespread the page doesn't use them. Instead relying in twitter tweets and self published sources. So a major overhaul will be needed, but with that in mind there is clearly enough coverage, and this information was gleamed from a ten minute google and duckduckgo search, you could certainly find more. Des Vallee (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough sources for inclusion if and when we get more reliable third party sources we can create another article of this, but it seems like there isn't enough but some references in specific sources which don't focus on Vaush with the exception of one news story which isn't enough to establish reliability, we use secondary sources and tertiary sources to establish neutrality and without them writing this article neutrally will be impossible. With that in mind "the article will get vandalized often" isn't a policy on Wikipedia an article can't be deleted because it prone to getting vandalized. Des Vallee (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the sources cited it bears mentioning that with the exception of the daily dot article, the page focus is only mentioned for one or two sentences and only in the vague inkling that he is a twitch streamer who identified as a left-wing political figure. Hardly enough meat to write an article or prove notability outside of a wide reaching group. In fact, the last one you posted contains no mention of him at all, just a single tweet he made in response to an event. Deku link (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources that aren't invalid due to just passing mentions are insufficient to provide enough notability and enough information for a neutral BLP.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject fails WP:GNG. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously fails WP:GNG with currently poor sourcing and very little chance of any improvement. A routine Google search reveals links to his social media profiles and a Reddit thread titled Who the hell is Vaush and why nobody likes him???. KidAd • SPEAK 04:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As mentioned, it's hard to find sources that amount to more than just passing mentions. Eik Corell (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only are there not enough sources here to write a proper article, his controversial status will result in this page being vandalized frequently.
• Delete Not enough independent sources, most sources are straight from him. Also the page as it is currently written sounds biased & like an advertisement/PR for him. Will be lots of vandalization wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awarehat (talk • contribs) 20:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are zero (0) features about this person anywhere. For an online figure that is clear indication that they do not meet Wikipedia:Notability and this page should be deleted until they do. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The state of the article makes me think "delete" but the Google News hits make me think maybe not. If you eliminate the hits that are just people quoting his tweets you get... Well, not a huge amount, but not nothing. If we are to have an article about him then it needs to be a lot better than this though. It would need to actually use those sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Draftify. I believe that Vaush does meet WP:N for a few reasons. The current state of the article is very different from when I originally moved it to mainspace. For GNG: While I totally agree many WP:SPSs should be removed, there is the worthwhile Independent deep-dive into online politics that the nom ignored, and a few other independent websites, such as the DailyDot or Meowww, all secondary sources (though the reliability should rightly be called into question). Also, one source that was linked above is an opinion article—not great, but it is something. The bar for what counts as WP:SIGCOV is above a passing mention in articles, which I’d say would pass. Additionally, this might also pass under WP:ENT #2: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. He has the largest left-leaning platform on YouTube by views, according to transparency.tube (though it’s not really a source). In the end it’s extremely up to interpretation. I do think the article can be improved somewhat more, though. Also, I’m sorry for adding my opinion in so late. I don’t mean to be slithery by doing so, just had lots of things to attend to. SWinxy (talk) 07:17, 21 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.