Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nihachu

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. ✗plicit 14:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nihachu

[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)

This YouTuber does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. NME is the only reliable source of note here, but appears to fall towards WP:INTERVIEW, thus not being wholly independent. Besides that, the only other coverage I could find was her joining a gaming organization: [1]. Everything else was no use to fulfill general notability. Sparkl^talk 13:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Video games, Entertainment, Internet, and Germany. Sparkl^talk 13:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources in this article, as well as those I found in my searches are from unreliable content farms or YouTube videos. The NME source is an interview and therefore not independent. She doesn't have any other significant coverage in reliable sources, so the article fails WP:GNG. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article does not meet WP:GNG. DrowssapSMM (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no proper sourcing or notability to be seen anywhere. NegativeMP1 23:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable YouTuber.

FatCat96 (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; she has tons of coverage and would seem to meet WP:BASIC just for having so much coverage that can be combined to show notability. However, here are also some of the better more indepth articles:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In addition, the NME article is not an interview, but about half quotations and the other half is staff commentary, so it counts towards notability.Hkkingg (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is an energy drink company's article about their collaboration with her, so not a good source. The second does not seem to have proper editorial standards, maybe you can point me to an about me that does explain their standards. Third is by its own admission a blog, with no editorial standards. Fourth (Sportskeeda) has consensus for being unreliable, it allows user-written content. The fifth is The Sun. LADBible (the sixth) is a content farm. The seventh is again, Sportskeeda. Even if you consider NME to count towards notability, there is no other significant coverage in reliable sources. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is poor evidence to demonstrate that there are independent and reliable sources about the subject. There is a strong reliance on primary social media sources and the secondary sources are predominantly tabloids and promotional sources. Independent reliable sources are enormously important in articles about living persons to ensure that the information is accurate and the article does not become a vanity outlet. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sadly, I couldn't find any other sources; most were either one-sentence name drops or plainly unusable as above editors pointed out. For the record however, WP:INTERVIEWS essentially states that not all interviews are primary or non-independent. Although most people often think of Q/A-style questions when mentioning interviews, many articles often contain both interview-esque quotes from the subject and secondary analysis and commentary. The NME source definitely contains secondary, independent analysis of her own quotes. I say this so in the future, if she merits an article, that source also counts towards her notability. I'd also support draftifying the article just in case she receives future coverage. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The sources to argue it being kept are either unreliable, promotional, or not independent of the subject. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 22:31, 16 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.