Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiaomanyc

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. Improvements to the article, if any, should be made in order to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 03:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaomanyc

[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)

WP:BLP of a YouTuber, not adequately sourced as passing our notability criteria for YouTubers. The article, as written, only just barely goes any further than "YouTuber who exists", and details absolutely no substantive accomplishments that would constitute meaningful notability claims -- and it's referenced to just two footnotes, both of which feature him doing the speaking about other things, instead of being the subject of coverage written by other people as WP:GNG actually requires.
And even on a Google News search for other sourcing, I still just find a lot of sources in which Xiaoma does the speaking about other subjects, and few to no sources in which other people are analyzing the significance of Xioma's work in the third person.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more sourcing and substance than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these sources from The Independent/Indy100, The Indian Express, The Daily Dot, Newsweek and ComicBook should be enough to establish Xiaomanyc's notability per WP:BASIC and, as a YouTuber, WP:WEB as well.

Also Bearcat, I have to disagree that the sources you, presumably, already found on Google News merely just quote his videos or don't analyze their significance in some way. If anything, these sources I pointed out are definitely in line with typical secondary sources that cite "primary sources for their material" (such as his videos) and make "analytic or evaluative claims about them." While these sources do cite material from him and his own videos directly, it's clear that they're treated less like primary, non-third-party sources (as in, the writer of the source was a primary witness to the video and/or affiliate of Xiaomanyc) but more along the lines of play-by-play summaries of his videos with evaluative claims, synthesis and facts that demonstrate his importance as a popular polyglot YouTuber.

For example, The Independent summarizes his video about spending $1k in tips at Chinatown restaurants while also contextualizing the video in relation to the COVID pandemic's effects on Chinese businesses. The Indian Express and The Daily Dot also wrote extensively about his videos - the former source discusses in detail a similar video where he experiences Bangladesh culture while speaking the language fluently, and the latter speaking fluent Mandarin to the surprise of the locals. These three sources serve as detailed summaries of his work per WP:WEB, in that the nature of his videos were covered in-depth - not just a simple "watch this cool video" style of routine coverage, but full-length articles from news outlets who found the videos interesting. It's similar to reviews of a web series, TV episodes and books.

Finally, these sources also point out significant facts about him as a YouTuber - such as his subscribers and views, him being a polyglot and the languages he speaks fluently, and how his life as a polyglot has received astonishment by various cultures. His life as a polyglot is the unusual trait about him that the world at large - namely reliable sources - have pointed out. He's a notable YouTuber; keep this article and revise with these sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Daily Dot and~~ Newsweek aren't reliable sources, the rest are. Sorry, here's the generally accepted list we can consult [1]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because none of the sources cited are IMHO good sources. Newsweek in particular is now junk. Bearian (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: Besides Newsweek and Comicbook, all of the listed sources are reliable per WP:RSPSS, and Newsweek is only considered situationally reliable, not unreliable. Also, citing an essay you wrote that hasn't been properly vetted by the WP community isn't exactly valid reasoning. His work HAS been noted by reliable secondary sources, and as a content creator, that proves his notability per WP:WEB. 2601:645:C100:6480:74CC:1014:5E5E:81C1 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My essay is based in turn on Wikipedia:WikiProject_YouTube/Notability, which is generally accepted. To quote that essay, "However, in practice, editors involved in deletion debates consider that a YouTuber needs to meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT." Bearian (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. In that regard, The Independent, The Indian Express, The Daily Dot and the EuroNews sources should still be enough to pass GNG. The latter article is over 500 words which is definitely above a trivial mention, and it details background info on him as a person/polyglot YouTuber. 2601:645:C100:6480:74CC:1014:5E5E:81C1 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think he fails my standards for YouTubers. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be "in-depth" when it comes to WP:SIGCOV, besides obvious one-sentence mentions? Because from my interpretation of GNG, all of them do cover his videos extensively, by quantity (word count - multiple paragraphs dedicated to the subject/his videos) and quality (significance). If you're trying to argue that they don't count for his notability because they focus more on his videos than on him (which IMO isn't really valid for deletion - of course people who make videos will have sources discuss their videos), the current revision also has a EuroNews article solely about him as well.

Also just to clarify, this is PantheonRadiance replying to the thread outside of my account. 2601:645:C100:6480:74CC:1014:5E5E:81C1 (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PC Gamer source seems solid. I can't access the Indian Express or the Independent, they look ok. Rest seem to push him past GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if a consensus can emerge over the next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources identified in this discussion are enough to meet WP:GNG; nothing else needs to be considered. Thparkth (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a feature in The Paper which discusses a video by Smith and talks a bit about his life (e.g., how he got interested in Chinese): 江南、新约客 (2021-03-05). "一个犹太人在唐人街发红包_澎湃号·湃客_澎湃新闻". The Paper (in Chinese). Not sure about adding this source to the article myself. Best, Bridget (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These also might be useful: article from the Asia Society and an incident during a plane trip covered by Business Insider (albeit likely trivial personal details). Best, Bridget (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2022 (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.