Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TommyInnit

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 keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TommyInnit

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

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

No reliable sources; vast majority are personal social media ManyGrunt (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are a few passing mentions of this individual on non-social media channels but nothing that indicates notability.VViking_TalkEdits 13:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is one of the most popular streamers on Twitch, he should have his own Wikipedia page as creators that are less popular than him also have a page. His Wikipedia page just needs more work and time spent on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoexm (talk • contribs) 02:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject seems to be notable beyond just association with larger YouTubers. A cursory check on google leads to a plethora of news articles detailing the individual, though a lot of it seems to just be fluff. Here are some more reliable sources:^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}

The article does need a major rework, however.

Orcaguy (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Orcaguy: DualShockers and Dexerto are listed as unreliable on WP:VG/RS. SK2242 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've marked them as unreliable. Orcaguy (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per
  Lee, Helen A. (January 20, 2021). "Twitch Streamer Tommyinnit Makes A Surprising Admission". SVG. Retrieved March 24, 2021.
  There’s also Tech Times and Distractify sources but reliability on those is unclear. SK2242 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. He is the 20th most-followed channel on Twitch, and reliable sources establishing notability do exist. The article just needs a rework. (Edit: Sources below show that the individual passes WP:GNG, and a rework seems to be occurring / have occurred.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While having the 20th most-followed Twitch channel is an achievement (obviously), it doesn't immediately indicate notability; for example, the 9th, 17th, and 18th most followed channels don't have their own page. ManyGrunt (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. The article is good enough with reliable sources that proves notability. He is the 20th most-followed channel on Twitch and has over 7 million subscribers on YouTube - which proves notability. Edl-irishboy (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the published sources on TommyInnit are questionable in reliability, which leaves only a few that can be considered "trustworthy". Even among those trustworthy sources, many of them concern TommyInnit's role on the Dream SMP (which was rejected for a lack of notability) instead of TommyInnit himself. This is far from the "significant coverage" mandated per WP:BASIC. ManyGrunt (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would like to see some more high quality sources before we write an article on TommyInnit. We gotta be extra careful with WP:BLPs on minors, and I'm definitely not seeing that kind of care being placed here right now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with the sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Dream SMP sources are the strongest evidence for Tommy's notability. The Yahoo Japan source is a translated version of this wired article ^[1] Another article on the Dream SMP has recently been published in The Verge, which also prominently mentions Tommy.^[2] Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources being vouched from Dream. 180.194.151.160 (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @180.194.151.160: If this is the case, then I say we make a section on Dream's article for TommyInnit. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @KullyKeemaKa: Oh gosh no, that is not a good idea. If there are enough sources for notability, then we can write an article. It isn't appropriate to use one WP:BLP as a WP:COATRACK to talk about another WP:BLP. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @MJL: Understandable, but if not enough notability can be found, then I say we either move the contents of this article into a draft or just delete the article completely. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. Wikiuserworldwide (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this, this and this are all reliable sources who give this person SIGCOV, meaning he passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Devonian Wombat: Fair enough, then I'll be waiting for an admin to close this discussion. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice catch! Edited my vote from "Weak Keep" to "Keep" due to these sources giving SIGCOV, passing WP:GNG. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Paintspot: If this article does pass WP:GNG, I'll be waiting for an admin to close this discussion. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: An admin going by the name of ​CodyGaming999 has reviewed this article and has officially determined the result as a "keep", so they may close this discussion. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Special:ListUsers, it appears as though that user is not an administrator. In fact, they created their account only two days ago. IanTEB (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. It does seem that that user is not an administrator. Should we add the Articles for Deletion template back in, as it has not been actually reviewed by an admin? The list of active admins does not show ​CodyGaming999 as an admin. Edl-irishboy (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just saw that the template has been re-added. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: As it turns out, CodyGaming999 is not an admin. The account was created just two days ago, which makes it suspicious. The deletion discussion template has been re-added to this article. We apologize for any inconvenience that this fraudulent admin has caused anyone. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 15:47, 1 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.