Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niko Omilana

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 redirect to 2021 London mayoral election#Other parties and candidates. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Omilana

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

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNGs. Most sources listed in the article at present are either a) not independent (the subject's YouTube, Twitter or Instagram account) or b) not from reliable sources (e.g. OtakuKart). While there is some routine coverage (of the sort you'd expect from anyone running for Mayor of London), most of these are not intellectually independent, covering either the announcement of the subject's intention to stand—and even then, the subject is only mentioned on a list of candidates with at most one or two sentences, not WP:SIGCOV—or centre around the results of one outlier poll (in which the subject polled at 5%). Per Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability, 65% of YouTubers in this subscriber range have their pages deleted, so I don't believe the subject meets WP:ENT's "significant "cult" following" criteria. A notability tag was previously added to the page, but was removed by an editor. I'd support a redirect being setup to 2021 London mayoral election#Other candidates, which already contains coverage of the poll, a full list of candidates, a brief description of the subject and their political positions. Domeditrix (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Domeditrix (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Domeditrix (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 2 May 2021 (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}}.

• Keep A very popular YouTuber among the present generation and a truly inspirational individual. He deserves to keep his panel as he has massed over 3 million subscribers and over 300 million views on YouTube. No need to delete it to be honest.

[[User:NZDF1985|NZDF1985] (talk) 8:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep While this is correct, Nikolas has played a major role in British YouTube. He is most notable for his "Ringside" pranks, and avoiding security.

It would be unfortunate to remove his wikipedia,as his fans would generally add more to his wikipedia,as he does more videos. Sources are reliable. TheBlitzTankster (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability as a YouTuber cannot be established by sourcing his YouTuber status to YouTube. It requires media coverage about his significance as a YouTuber. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article is based far too heavily on primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his own self-published Twitter, Instagram and YouTube profiles and/or directory entries — but the just six sources that are actually independent of him at all are not building a strong case that he would get over WP:GNG: three of those six are still not reliable source media outlets at all, two just include his name in listicles and thus aren't substantive coverage of him, and the one that is actually both reliable and about him in any non-trivial way is still just the routine campaign coverage that every mayoral candidate in every city always gets. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: A google search brought up coverage in a few reliable sources like [1] [2] [3] [4] This should be enough to just pass GNG. ColinBear (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dexerto isn't a reliable source at all, and just because a person can show a couple of hits of campaign coverage in the context of being an as yet unelected candidate for political office does not get them over GNG in lieu of having to pass the defined inclusion criteria for politicians. As I said above, every mayoral candidate in every city can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so just showing a couple of hits of campaign coverage is not enough to exempt a non-winning candidate from NPOL per se. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unquestionably meets GNG per indy100, BBC and BuzzFeed News coverage. SK2242 (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzFeed isn't a notability-making source at all, and the only BBC citations here are glancing namechecks of his existence in listicles that namecheck every candidate in the election he's running in, and thus fail to make Niko Omilana more special than any of his opponents. GNG is not just "how many web pages can be found that happen to have his name in them". Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzFeed News is reliable per RSP and can be used to establish notability. SK2242 (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my earlier comment per Bondegezou, but Draftify should be the outcome of this AfD as there is a good chance Omilana will have coverage outside of his mayoral candidacy. SK2242 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - I am on the fence about this, and I cannot ignore his vast coverage, but as per Bearcat, every mayoral candidate has automatically gotten coverage form significant sources like the BBC, and the article also cites several self-published sources and sources which are otherwise largely unreliable (i.e. OtakuKart). I would also like to add - since some commenters have noted this - that his subscriber count does not necessarily make him notable enough for his own article. The vast majority of coverage are as a result of his mayoral campaign only (like BuzzFeed and Indy100), so a redirect to 2021 London mayoral election#Other candidates as per Domeditrix would make sense. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability guidelines. I notice that polling day is next week, so maybe the results will decide for us whether the article should remain or not. doktorb _words^deeds 19:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete RS coverage is of his mayoral candidacy. As per WP:NPOL, people who are only candidates and whose RS coverage is for their candidacy are better dealt with under the election article and are not independently notable. Bondegezou (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Much like the recent case of Max Fosh: a bunch of routine election candidate coverage which WP:NPOL tells us isn't helpful determining notability as a politician. I don't think there's evidence he meets WP:NYOUTUBE's recommendation to meet both WP:ENT and the WP:GNG, or either in isolation. Ralbegen (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omilana isn't really the same as Fosh, after performing nearly an order of magnitude better than him in the election. It still doesn't make him a notable politician, but it is quite good for an independent and suggests he has the large fan base or a significant "cult" following from WP:ENT. User:GKFX^talk 18:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any coverage of him that counts as "significant" for the purposes of the various notability guidelines. Mayoral candidates in London will always get basic run-of-the-mill coverage, even those unaffiliated with the major political parties - that does not make all of them notable. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is not the first time he has received national coverage for political stunts, he has received significant coverage for this and in the past. I also think its important as part of a wave of youtubers using elections as content. Could be historically significant User talk:Jalexlb Jalexlb also did a cleanup btw. — Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jalexlb: can you provide a reliable source showing significant coverage of Omilana unrelated to this candidacy? SK2242 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SK2242:: Comment The Sun and Daily Mirror provided coverage of Omilana’s pranks

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tommy-robinson-left-red-faced-13133450/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13131642/youtubers-chaos-fake-mcdonalds/

WP:RSP says The Sun is not reliable and there is no consensus on whether the Mirror is. Bondegezou (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sold on this being usable to establish notability. The subject of the article (for the Mirror, we can ignore The Sun) is clearly Tommy Robinson. That article may be used to establish the notability of Tommy Robinson, but not of Niko Omilana - otherwise we'd have thousands of articles of dogs covered in WP:DOGBITESMAN stories. Domeditrix (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has over 3 million subs and almost 300 million views. Marko8726 (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep JamesVilla44 (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While running for mayor is certainly something interesting, unless he wins it isn't a great basis for notability (no significant coverage beyond namechecks is available). Excluding his candidacy, nothing else about him suggests notability. Remagoxer (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SK2242:: Comment It is more coverage by the BBC and guardian and the fact his high polling might deny Sadiq a majority in the first round. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}User talk:Jalexlb

WP:NPOL is clear that election campaign coverage should be covered in the relevant election article and is not, by itself, sufficient to establish notability for an individual. You are welcome to add content to 2021 London mayoral election. Bondegezou (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About half the results are in for the Mayoral election and Omilana is currently fifth on 2%. He will not have denied Sadiq a majority in the first round: Khan is more than 2% off that feat. Bondegezou (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2021 London mayoral election#Other parties and candidates, where he is listed. YouTube stats are not notability. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait. In the results of the election, he's apparently come 4th, the best of all the 'minor' candidates. His notabiity was marginal before, but that result is likely to lead to some additional coverage over the coming days. Robofish (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5th, winning 2% of the vote. He failed to win even half the votes of any of the candidates from parties with London Assembly members. Domeditrix (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and losing his deposit. He warrants some coverage under 2021 London mayoral election, which he has. That isn't evidence he warrants his own article. Coming fifth does not demonstrate notability under WP:NPOL or, indeed, WP:COMMONSENSE. Bondegezou (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2% is substantial for a less-serious candidate. He did better than Laurence Fox despite Fox having a significant public profile already. I would agree with waiting a bit. User:GKFX^talk 10:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. non-notable in any way - mention in 2021 London mayoral election is sufficient.--Smerus (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- minor Internet personality, but scrapes in in terms of WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2021 London mayoral election as he's well documented enough there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 11 May 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.