Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ContraPoints

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ContraPoints

[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)

Non-notable YouTuber with relatively low subscriber count. I found two articles on the channel (1, 2), but they are from somewhat less than reliable sources (one of them politically partisan) and they do not amount to notable coverage. Pokajanje (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subscriber/view count has no bearing on notability except insofar as it enables people to see the videos, which leads to significant coverage in RS. New York Magazine is a reliable source. Regarding Current Affairs, partisan does not mean non-trustworthy ("reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective"), particularly for a topic like this. Reviewing/profiling a creator online is non-controversial and nothing like giving an interpretation of a politically-charged current event. Readers can disagree with their glowing review, but it doesn't make the channel any less notable. If perceived bias is the issue, we can even append "left-wing magazine Current Affairs ..." in the text of the article. Moreover, neither one of these sources are passing mentions; they are both in-depth profiles (enough detail that nothing in the article comes from the videos themselves, all from secondaries). There ARE plenty of passing mentions in other sources, but these are not what notability hangs on, anyway.--MattMauler (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons stated above. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as ContraPoints has become a point of reference for online discussions on politics across the political spectrum, especially among young people and internet aficionados, no matter one's personal opinion on the content. As a disclaimer I need to mention that I authored a similar article on Mike Stuchbery who performs a similar function in public discourse. It was immediately a target of "new accounts" which edited troll content in and upvoted a deletion request like this one. This article should stay, but as with my article on Stuchbery, any serious Wikipedian who sees neutrality issues should of course be able to edit it. VividImpression (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Matt stated, being reliable doesn't mean being neutral. We seem to have enough reliable secondary sources to satisfy the general guidelines. Alexander Levian (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per VividImpressions Wolfson5 (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Further supporting my !vote above: I added one source to the article, since discussion began, from the LGBT magazine Out Front: [1] The article is not as long or in-depth as the others above, but the magazine has been around since the 1970s and releases both print and digital editions, so I thought it might have implications for notability as well. Secondly, I wanted to note that the New York Magazine article linked above is by Jesse Singal, who has written for The Atlantic and Newsweek. With his cred and the magazine's, it doesn't make sense to dismiss the ref as "less than reliable."--MattMauler (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2018 (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.