Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott the Woz

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 no consensus‎. I see no consensus, leaning Keep. My instinct is to Drafity but as PantheonRadiance points out, this article was a draft and was accepted (see [1]) so I'm reluctant to return it to Draft space. It sounds like the problems that have occured since it was accepted can be remedied by editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott the Woz

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

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

Article were only filled with unreliable sources. WP:BEFORE shows nothing. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Draftify: Love Scott but there's not much sources, hopefully he can pick some up soon since he's my favorite Youtuber. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Draft: Needs better third-party sources, but otherwise. Decent article. — 216.49.130.5 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Video games, and Entertainment. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify; This is an incredibly popular YouTuber that I watch myself, but he hasn't gotten much coverage and the article should probably be moved to draftspace. I did manage to find this from Nintendo Life, which doesn't say anything except say that he exists, but that's pretty much all I could get. NegativeMP1 18:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If consesus is that notability is not met, a redirect to List of programs broadcast by G4#Final programming could be appropriate. IanTEB (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the article has many primary sources (in line with WP:SPS), to say that it only consists of unreliable sources is erroneous. He meets WP:WEB and WP:GNG. For example, PC Games, a reliable source per WP:VG/RS, wrote a lengthy review of his content in 2021. Automaton, reliable per the Chinese VG/RS, also wrote an article discussing one of his videos. PopCulture, while not fully discussed, also seems like a fairly reliable media outfit. Finally, Plugged In wrote a review of his content as well. There are also sources from Screen Rant, Game Rant and CBR, but seeing as how they've been quite divisive here owing to Valnet, I'd understand omitting them for proving notability (besides perhaps CBR). PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I think the PC Games article is the only valuable source here. Popculture cab be fine, but isn't a receptuon at all. Meanwhile, there's no proof that Automan and Plugged in are reliable, plugged is def unreliable. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any of those are reliable sources though... Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenish Pickle! @Sergecross73 I get that PopCulture hasn't been discussed enough to determine its reliability. But on the "other reliable" section of VG/RS, PC Games is listed there. I posted on the talk page nearly two years ago that it was used in an FA-review for Paper Mario, and it does have an editorial staff (EIC wrote the article). Speaking of FAs, Plugged In was used as attributed opinion for Wizards of Waverly Place, so I think it should also be usable for said purposes here. Finally, the Chinese VG/RS has a lengthy discussion a while back concluding Automaton was fairly reliable. PantheonRadiance (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point on PC Games, but I'm still uncertain that there's enough here to write a WP:BLP article around though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although this article's more about the web series rather than the creator (a draft of Scott himself was declined a while back). While I personally believe it's enough, I can understand otherwise if not. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. PCGames.de is reliable and has over 700 words of SIGCOV of the subject. No reason to doubt PopCulture.com is reliable[2][3], over 400 words of SIGCOV of the subject. No reason to doubt Atomaton is reliable[4], hard to wordcount, but Google translates it to ~1000 words. —siro χ o 08:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PC games and Popculture are the only one reliable sources,others were unreliable. Plus, building an article around *just* brief mention or short review like doesn't work because it often doesn't demonstrate any reception or significance beyond that work. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 18:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Atomaton unreliable? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - As per above discussion that deep coverage on the show not available and WP:NOTJUSTYET Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposed to be an article on the show not the person PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. As much as I love Scott the Woz, I feel like the sourcing is just not quite good enough yet for an article. I suspect that this will change sooner rather than later, though. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as an article of the series - rather than the person - per PantheonRadiance. IanTEB (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not as a BLP but as an article about the web series. The reliability of some of the sources can be disputed, but I think that the ones provided are enough to pass GNG. StartOkayStop (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PantheonRadiance. I personally feel that the sources should be enough to satisfy GNG regarding the web series/show. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 16:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are divided between those advocating Draftification and those who want to Keep this article and argue that it's a show about a series, not a BLP.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tiny amount of coverage on his show on the relaunch of G4 [5] in ScreenRant, an iffy source. I'll keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Long way to GNG with paltry sourcing. Best I can suggest is to put a brief mention of his show in a section in the G4 article. Might be a thing in the future, enough to get him some amount of coverage... Sources just aren't there to be able to make a stand-alone article about this streamer. Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b ...So what about the sources we discussed above? You don't agree that those are reliable enough to contribute to notability? PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a regular viewer of Scott the Woz and as per PantheonRadiance. This article is about the series, not the person itself (Scott the Woz is the icon of the series, but it also has several other characters in there). Though some sources are questionable, I think the article as a whole meets WP:GNG with the remaining reliable sources. Also, Scott The Woz is a popular channel with over 1.8 million subscribers (though subscriber counts don't necessarily confirm notability, I feel that YouTube channels with over 1 million subscribers have a point in notability). And... well, the channel is influential enough to indirectly disrupt Wikipedia every time they mention it (such as Wii Music (deletion discussion)). ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒧᐱᕬ (Talk) 10:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As this notability review from last year has noted, there's at best three sources indicating notability, and maybe not even that. The article is also filled to the brim with primary sources. Cortador (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two arguably SIGCOV sources that have been introduced during this discussion that were not covered in that notability review: a channel review by Plugged In – a site that got through an FAR – and an article by Automaton – reliable per the Chinese Wikipedia – discussing an episode of the series. Also with the extensive article by PC Games, there should be enough to demonstrate notability. This is not counting the articles by PopCulture.com and CBR, which are of more debatable reliablity. IanTEB (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note this the article's deletion was posted to the Scott the Woz subreddit at 14/09/23 09:08:54 2023 UTC [6] Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: It seems like almost all are opposing deletion of the article, with SKmaric saying "I always found it odd that Wikipedia's "no primary sources" standard basically means, you can't write something and link to the actual source, but someone else can write the same thing in a news article or research paper, and then it's okay to be written on Wikipedia.", and JoePCool14 saying "Wikipedia is kinda shooting itself in the foot lately with their new policies from what I've heard. This might be another example of that...". |)are2|_eap (Talk) 23:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  What users outside Wikipedia - who evidently don't understand its policies - think does not matter. Cortador (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  These are random users on Reddit that have no understanding of how Wikipedia notability and policies work, and we shouldn't use that to judge a vote. Granted, I wouldn't expect an average person to, I still don't know every policy myself and I've been here for months, but my point still remains. What could possibly be something to Note is this comment, confusing an AfD for being a democracy and telling those with an account here to oppose deletion as a result. NegativeMP1 20:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the record and for those advocating to draftify, Scott the Woz was already a draft before. Someone created the draft back in early 2021, a couple months after it was deleted in October 2020 per this AfD. Following the draft's creation, the article was repeatedly declined in AfC before being finally accepted in July 2022, due to sources such as PC Games and Screen Rant/CBR appearing in the draft. So to draftify an article that had already went through so many good faith edits and had its notability vetted doesn't sit right with me. I feel the only reason it was nominated was because the article admittedly became filled with lots of primary sources and overly detailed fancruft between its AfC acceptance and now. As a result, it masked the notability of the series unintentionally. Regardless of if it does get kept or draftified again, the article should probably be rewritten to include less fancrufty info and more info from these sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those wanting to draftify/delete this article, keep in mind that, although the channel's coverage is very limited relative to its subscriber count, I added many citations to this article, especially the Fundraising & Television broadcast section. Also, if you look at the AfD talk page, there is an unregistered user who wanted to keep this article and said that it is well-made and very important for Scott the Woz fans. Am I allowed to port it over to this discussion so that it becomes a vote? Because it's clear they wanted to keep this article. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 07:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously meets GNG, per discussion and text sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep with a cleanup to remove superfluous extra information and focus on the show instead of the person. It seems to me like the sources are there to justify an article, but there's a lot of extra information that doesn't really need to be there. Thanksolotl (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2023 (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.