This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles
For any AfC reviewers and the people who worked on this draft, I suggest you take a look at these sources. While the draft is currently bombarded with primary and unreliable sources, I may have identified some reliable sources that prove this subject has potential for notability.
Perhaps this draft should be rewritten to remove the unreliable sources and incorporate these into the article, along with other additional reliable sources that may exist. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PantheonRadiance A lot the sources are churnalism (Guinness stuff, the hack, etc...all churnalism) and many of the others are largely what he says (or has written) which is not independent. The GQ piece offers the most about him but still a lot of it is him talking about himself (not meaning that in a negative way, just not helpful for notability). For these reasons, I am declining it for now. S0091 (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I can see how one might construe the hacking incident as "churnalism," the articles do provide at least some secondary analysis about how he managed to perform the incident along with how the exploit directly led YouTube to remove that exploit, showing that it did have a fairly big impact that goes a bit beyond WP:NOTNEWS. In general, I'd be careful about dismissing topics that may seem insignificant even when reliable, secondary sources have taken note of said topic - personally, I've seen that line of thinking descend into "I don't like it" territory fast.
Also, while the GQ article does contain quotes from him, the article clearly intersperses secondary information required for WP:GNG from the author, such as his background as a YouTuber along with the content he makes and its significance. It may be an interview, but per WP:Interviews, it definitely veers more along the "60 Minutes" side of the spectrum. I will admit though that if it weren't for the GQ article I most likely wouldn't have decided to create this discussion. That source demonstrated to me that the subject may have more potential than what was present in the multiple past deletions.
With that in mind, this draft still has a long way before it gets accepted at the rate it's going, as there's still too many poor sources present. So I do thank you for reviewing the article the way you did. In the meantime I'll continue to find more sources in the future. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
