SSSniperwolf: Fails WP:GNG.  No notability.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I found [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , etc.  Clearly notable, literally has over 30000000 subsrcibers, many sources like in ongoing high profile career.  Article needs improvement, to deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 05:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please consider adding independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage.  Many of the sources you provided here are a bit lacking, try to find 2 or 3 of the best.  See WP:GNG .  Also note big numbers won't get a lot of traction here.   — siro χ o 10:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of those are trivial mentions or in sources we don't consider notable.  Sub numbers aren't really a marker of reliability here, as they can be bought.  Unless she's had in independent auditing firm confirm her numbers, we can't use them.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On the contrary all subscribers on youtube are real people, you can pay for real people to watch your videos and subscribe, but either way they are real people.  See Here PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 17:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article might be notable, but it doesn't provide the best sourcing in its current condition.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 06:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Entertainment .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - large amounts of internet points do not automatically make one notable.  does not include reliable sources, either.  DrowssapSMM ( talk ) 22:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Hardly anything found in RS, most is PR stuff [44] , this is about the most non-PR thing I can find [45] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Surprised this was even nominated, but I'm also surprised the WP:BEFORE searches don't make notability here crystal clear.  Mentioned in a few books and a couple scholarly articles.  Would like to do a better recent media search than the major search engines allow.  SportingFlyer T · C 21:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also surprised this was previously deleted.  It's the inverse of famously not famous - not famously famous?  SportingFlyer T · C 21:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you provide WP:THREE , as nothing I've found has really sufficed.  As such, I'm leaning toward delete but haven't bolded a ! vote yet.  — siro χ o 22:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Azcentral and Sportkeeda articles Das osmnezz posted I think pass GNG, not all of those do but there's a couple in that mix I can't tell whether they do or not.  There's a scholarly article as well but not familiar with that journal, along with other mentions.  There are a few book mentions as well.  As I said, I'm surprised it's not easy to find more - for instance she was at a Hollywood premiere but there's nothing but pictures of her from that premiere.  SportingFlyer T · C 11:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would like to point out that the "scholarly article" is a random bachelor's thesis.  I don't speak Swedish, but the English version of its abstract is completely incoherent.  Dr. Duh 🩺 ( talk ) 11:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess AZcentral verifies subscriber counts and profession, but most of that article is a bit weak for BLP (routine house sales and household details and such).  The consensus seems to be that Sportskeeda is unreliable .  WP:SCHOLARSHIP doesn't suggest Bachelors theses as a reliable secondary source.   Maybe just WP:TOOSOON .  — siro χ o 12:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Didn't realise Sportskeeda was user contributed.  I'll once again be surprised this doesn't fit with our notability standards, probably because this is the Youtube personality I've actually heard of, but it's hard to find media which clearly passes GNG.  SportingFlyer T · C 13:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Surprised there aren't sources out there to establish notability as this is one of the top game streamers on YouTube or Twitch (or both).  I've deleted their article before speedy deletion but that was years ago and I'm suprised nothing has changed since then.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I think we may have a case for WP:BASIC , but I made the below table and I am still not sure.  I've included I think all the sources presented here and in the article.  — siro χ o 08:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , will change if there's at least 2 (multiple) reliable sources found.  Just having a high sub count is not suitable for a Wikipedia article.  Karnataka ( talk ) 22:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  Prolific North Secondary coverage, unsure about site, but credited author seems legitimate.  <--see ~ ~310 words, mostly about subject's earnings ~ Partial Tubefilter ~ mostly interview, verifies and analyzes some statistics ~ industry pub that disclosed a sponsor for the story excluding the interview we have some confirmed stats and minor analysis ~ Partial Ana Ruiz Segarra, The University of Western Ontario masters thesis ~ masters thesis ~ 33 words of coverage.  ~ Partial CFP: Celebrities of Gaming: The 5th Jyväskylä Autumn Seminar ] only published coverage is a name in list ✘ No Forbes profile mostly from subject ~ ✘ No Deadline 3 words of sigcov - minor award ✘ No Hollywood reporter minor award again ✘ No eonline minor award again ✘ No GameRant valnet property + pseudonymous author = no accountability ✘ No Bachelor thesis bachelor thesis ?  ✘ No AZCentral ~ mostly routine (real estate etc), verifies profession and some subscriber counts ~ Partial sportskeeda ?  [46] ✘ No Vogue interview ✘ No SVG almost entirely attributed to subject, and seems to keep subject voice without quoting at times, does not seem to have done any further verification past a single interview with subject ?  ✘ No tuko see comment below see comment below Is SIGCOV, (please take care, as much cannot be used for BLP) ✔ Yes win.gg ] ?  win.gg is tied to sports betting company ✘ No Nicki Swift seems to be secondary synthesis of other videos and interviews ~ Seems reliable for "gossip" type coverage and little more, we can't reliably source much more from it, esp due to BLP "We don't just report news, we editorialize it in a way that drives the conversation forward." ~ Partial Dexerto (initially presented below) no flags ~ No specific flags so not "red" for this article, but it's primarily "gossip" type stuff mostly unsuitable for BLP; while the author seems fine, the source is widely considered unreliable on wikipedia.  [47] [48] ~ Partial This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Comment Thank you for the source assessment above, I've already ! voted, but this still doesn't seem to show notability.  A bunch of partials; if we had at least one solid source, I'd give it a pass for wiki.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just added another source https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/sssniperwolf-hits-back-at-accusations-of-stealing-youtube-video-ideas-2194214/ Independent: Yes,   Reliable: Author is Reliable,   Significant Coverage: Yes (372 Words) PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 17:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, added in to table with further reliability analysis.  I'm still at weak keep.  I think I would need either 1 "fully green" source or a few more sources at the AZcentral/Prolific North level to be confident in a keep ! vote.  — siro χ o 21:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Siroxo : I have evaluated Who is Sssniperwolf?  5 quick facts about the YouTube star .  Tuko is an independent news source from Kenya.  It seems about on par with The Guardian.  Upon reading the article, I cannot tell if this is based off a subject interview.  To me it just looks like a reporter's intuition to get details from various sources.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks.  Reviewing, I lean towards agreeing with your analysis of the source.  I've updated the table to reflect it.  (Caveat to any future editors is that, unfortunately, much of that article probably cannot be used for BLP).  It still helps to demonstrate WP:BASIC ] — siro χ o 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , largely per Siroxo's analysis above.  I would quibble with some of the yellow coding, as I don't see how e.g. the AZcentral article falls short of the SIGCOV requirement that it address[] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content .  But in any event I think we have sufficient coverage to meet NBASIC's threshold of having received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, especially considering that [i]f the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I like to think of partials of halves, 2 partials equaling a whole green.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:14, 23 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus