CaseOh: The Esports Illustrated paragraph is probably ok, but it's not enough.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 06:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Video games , Entertainment ,  and Internet .  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 06:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] TO THE CLOSER OF THE ARTICLE: Here is why I believe that this article should be kept: CaseOh is a quickly growing streamer on Twitch, over the past few months he has grown substantially, reaching MILLIONS of subscribers and followers on multiple different platforms.  He is extremely well-known, especially on Twitch and Tiktok, and (saying this as an exaggeration), you could ask pretty much anybody on these social platforms who CaseOh is, and they will immediately know.  His channels have grown exponentially recently.  I understand this alone does not prove notability, but it shows that he is well-known, so more sources about him are likely to appear very soon.  CaseOh has received multiple awards.  He has received the silver play button and the gold play button from YouTube.  Although there are many people who have received these rewards, so they may not be super significant, but they are well-known, which is criteria in WP:ANYBIO for presumed notability.  He has also received an award from The Streamer Awards , and was nominated for 2 other awards.  These awards are both significant and well-known.  Very few people have received an award from the Streamer Awards, less than 100 based on the amount of Streamer Award shows that have taken place.  However, the event is growing quickly, it reached 645,000 concurrent viewers this year, according to this main source , but also many other sources like this one and this one .  I believe that this definitely passed WP:ANYBIO , due to the significance of that award, and the 2 nominations.  There were also many internet celebrities attending this event, along with it being broadcasted on many places on the internet, with articles about it being made from large companies such as IGN , who made not one, but two articles about it.  According to WP:SNG and WP:Notability , it says the subject does not need to meet WP:GNG if it meets WP:SNG.  For WP:ANYBIO , it says they are notable if they won a significant award, or were nominated for multiple significant awards.  Even if you say I am wrong and meeting WP:SNG does not overwrite WP:GNG, I still believe that there are at least 2 sources in the article that meet WP:GNG.  As I stated in my reply to another editor, " I believe stwalkerster made a mistake in his source assessment, as he marked the sources from VentureJolt and The Tech Education as unreliable, specifically because they "publish too frequently". Based off of the size of the articles being published and the possibility of them being made earlier before publishing, I do not believe this has nothing to do with the reliability, therefore those 2 are reliable sources which would both count to WP:GNG. However, that is up to the closer to decide. If these sources are counted as going toward GNG, then the article is definitely fit to keep on Wikipedia. " He also marked the articles from ESportsIllustrated, a reliable source, as " Little more than a list entry ", but these articles do not just list CaseOh, they talk about him and his streams, and even feature him in multiple large images in the articles.  I strongly believe this article should be kept, but if my arguments for keeping it are not enough, I request that this article gets draftified until more sources can be found.  However, once again, I believe that shouldn't be needed, because I think the article should be kept on the mainspace (just maybe with a banner to encourage finding more citations).  Thank you.  Antny08 ( talk ) 01:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see the gold and silver play button information even being sourced.  Cortador ( talk ) 11:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] CaseOh - YouTube He has over 2 million subscribers, which means he has earned both the silver and gold play buttons.  Here is CaseOh receiving his gold play button .  Antny08 ( talk ) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Subscribers alone don't guarantee you the buttons.  YouTube sometimes choose not to award channels the buttons e.g. music or news channel generally don't get them.  Case evidently got his button, but if all you have is a primary source, that won't contribute towards notability.  Cortador ( talk ) 09:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] CaseOh is obviously not a music or news channel.  According to WP:ANYBIO , this does contribute to notability.  As long as you are able to prove he has received the award (which I did prove), then it counts.  Antny08 ( talk ) 12:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify .  EDIT: Changed vote to draftify, as arguments from others do make sense.  Tosay he is not notable makes absolutely no sense.  If you have a social media account you will almost guaranteed know who CaseOh is.  He has not thousands, but MILLIONS of followers.  According to WP: Notability (people) , significant awards automatically make the subject presumably notable.  CaseOh has recieved the silver and gold play buttons, both very significant awards, but most importantly, he won the Best Variety Streamer Award (with multiple great sources to prove it), which is a very significant and rare award.  These awards alone are enough to make CaseOh presumably notable.  The sources in the article are reliable enough and provide enough coverage of CaseOh to finish out that notability.  CaseOh is known by millions upon millions of people, it does not make any sense to say he is "not notable enough for Wikipedia".  Antny08 ( talk ) 10:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to mention sources like this [24] , which are also from ESports Illustrated.  Not only is it a reliable source, but it literally says he is the 5th most popular streamer on Twitch and the MOST POPULAR variety streamer.  To comment on your writing about venturejolt, the link that you sent does not state it is a blog anywhere on there.  Also, that very page you sent says this “ At VentureJolt, we uphold the highest editorial standards to ensure the accuracy and reliability of our news content. Our team of experienced journalists and contributors follow rigorous fact-checking processes and adhere to journalistic ethics. We strive to present news in an unbiased manner, providing you with a well-rounded perspective on the stories that shape our world. ” That shows they have high editorial standards there.  Antny08 ( talk ) 11:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Popularity isn't really a factor for whether a subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards.  A subject is notable if that subject has already been written about extensively by others who are independent of the subject in published reliable sources , and I'm just not seeing that here.  The best alternatives are indeed the awards, or WP:CREATIVE which I think we're even further from.  On the subject of awards, there are various sites which claim there are tens of thousands of gold play buttons awarded so I doubt that these are at the level of significance intended by WP:ANYBIO .  I've briefly been through the sources in the article as it stands at the moment, and I agree with the nominator that there isn't really enough significant coverage (see table below which I've barely even populated and yet it's still entirely red on the right hand side).  On the subject of ESportsIllustrated, (whether or not it's reliable) the information there about CaseOh is purely as a list entry with almost no coverage.  I've not properly assessed VentureJolt/TheTechEducation, but they do give me vibes of being content-mill websites rather than sites with journalistic integrity.  The author of the VentureJolt article appears to be publishing about 5 articles daily , which makes me nervous how much time and effort is being put into each article.  The author of the TheTechEducation article appears to have an even faster publish rate.  stwalkerster ( talk ) 12:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure The Streamer Awards would survive an afd, but it might.  It exists, that much we know.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 13:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What do you mean?  The Streamer Awards is a well-known events that gets tens of thousands of viewers.  645 THOUSAND PEOPLE WATCHED IT!!!!! You cannot say that is unknown of!!!! Antny08 ( talk ) 14:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You’re still ignoring the fact that he has millions of followers and is so highly known and recognizable on many social media platforms.  If you ask somebody on TikTok or Twitch or YouTube who CaseOh is they will know.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We're ignoring follower counts because it's simply not relevant to WP:N .  stwalkerster ( talk ) 14:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But there are new sources bound to come about him at some time.  Maybe instead of deleting this article we could draftify it until more sources are released?  Please let me know what you think.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The speed at publishing does not affect the reliability and you cannot just assume it’s unreliable just because you don’t like how fast he publishes.  Publishing frequently can actually be a sign of reliability, not the opposite.  The streamer awards alone proves notability for CaseOh.  There are multiple articles about it.  The Streamer Awards received 645 THOUSAND concurrent viewers this year.  He was nominated for not one, not two, but THREE different awards and won an award from the event, the BEST VARIETY STREAMER.  The Streamer Awards were highly broadcasted online and had many famous figures and viewers.  This shows notability.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I replied on my talk page, a high speed of publications from a single author makes me doubt that any substantial research and fact-checking has gone into any of the articles published by that author.  It also makes me doubt that anyone is giving proper editorial oversight over that publication.  Neither of those are good signs for the journalistic integrity or reliability of those sources.  Sure, it's just an indicator and not a firm point, but a relevant one.  stwalkerster ( talk ) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand, but once again due to the length of the articles and the potential of them being made before-hand, it doesn’t make sense to consider them completely unreliable.  Antny08 ( talk ) 15:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That shows what they say about themselves.  You may or may not find this essay of some interest: Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability .  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 13:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe that his win at Streamer Awards prove him notable for Wikipedia, but, if the consensus still disagrees after my arguments, then I suggest that we Draftify the article until more sources can be published.  Antny08 ( talk ) 15:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no objection to draftify.  This discussion will be closed in a week or so, we'll see what the closer thinks.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 15:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't see any problems with this article.  He's notable, gaining popularity in the past few weeks, and, sure, the article may be a little short, but that's fine.  Waylon (he was here) ( Does my editing suck? Let's talk. ) ( Also, not to brag, but... ) 16:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another thing, according to WP:SNG and WP:Notability , it says the subject does not need to meet WP:GNG if it meets WP:SNG.  For WP:ANYBIO , it says they are notable if they won a significant award, or were nominated for multiple significant awards.  CaseOh was nominated for 3 different awards at the Streamer Awards and won one of them.  This event had 645,000 concurrent viewers, and was broadcasting everywhere online during its airing.  It is a very popular event with many famous people attending and watching.  I believe this proves the notability.  Antny08 ( talk ) 16:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Start reading higher up on the page: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."  This is followed by "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards."  My emphasis.  That means, if they meet the following standards, WP:BASIC sources are likely to be around.  If they're not, they're not.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 17:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Considering his cultural relevance, I think it's safe to assume Baker is worthy of an article.  A testament to this fact is the myriad of satirical content published about him (for example popular YouTuber Meatcanyon's [25] recently published satire about Baker and his streams).  By merit of his growth and awards I believe him to be worthy of an article, although more sources would be optimal hitherto expansion of the article.  Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov ( talk ) 17:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I believe that there are reliable sources in the article.  I believe stwalkerster made a mistake in his source assesment, as he marked the sources from Venturejolt and The Tech Education as unreliable, specifically because they "publish too frequently".  Based off of the size of the articles being published and the possibility of them being made earlier before publishing, I do not believe this has nothing to do with the reliablility, therefore those 2 are reliable sources which would both count to WP:GNG.  However, that is up to the closer to decide.  If these sources are counted as going toward GNG, then the article is definitely fit to keep on Wikipedia.  Antny08 ( talk ) 01:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] NEW SOURCE: [26] Here is a new source for CaseOh, just released.  It is from thesportsgrail.com, which is used as a source in hundreds of articles.  This source may meet WP:GNG, please let me know.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: prepared by User:stwalkerster Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  https://twitchtracker.com/caseoh_/games Stats tracking only ✘ No https://www.youtube.com/@caseoh_/about Subject's own social media page ✘ No https://venturejolt.com/2024/02/25/who-is-caseoh/ High frequency publishing from author I'm feeling charitable ✘ No https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/news-who-caseoh-twitch-streamer-s-meteoric-rise-popularity-explored WP:SPORTSKEEDA ✘ No https://thetecheducation.com/who-is-caseoh/ High frequency publishing from author ✘ No https://twitchtracker.com/caseoh_ Stats tracking only ✘ No https://esi.si.com/news/twitch-top-10-feburary-27th-to-march-4th Not much more than a list entry ✘ No https://esi.si.com/news/twitch-top-10-best-streamers-and-games-feb-19-26-2024 Not much more than a list entry ✘ No https://streamscharts.com/channels/caseoh_/subscribers Stats tracking only ✘ No https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=x5m5eTY3xug user-generated content ✘ No https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikestubbs/2024/03/08/how-jynxzi-became-the-biggest-streamer-on-twitch/ WP:FORBESCON Name drop only ✘ No https://esi.si.com/news/streamer-awards-2024-nominees List entry only ✘ No https://www.tubefilter.com/2024/01/25/2024-streamer-awards-nominations-kai-cenat-jynxzi-hosted-qt-cinderella-pokimane/ List entry only ✘ No https://thestreamerawards.com/winners List entry only ✘ No https://esi.si.com/news/streamer-awards-2024-winners Little more than a list entry ✘ No 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 }} .  Delete For failing WP:NPERSON - the source analysis seems right on the money.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, according to WP:ANYBIO , he meets notability guidelines.  Please reconsider.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Where are the WP:THREE best sources then?  I don't see even a single source that is both reliable and significant, much less multiple ones.  ANYBIO simply suggests the person is probably notable, proof is still required in the form of sources.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I suggested we should draftify the article, until better sources can be found.  Please consider changing your input to draftify rather than delete so we can provide time for better sources to emerge.  Thanks.  Antny08 ( talk ) 15:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Personally, I don't see evidence that draftification will save the article.  You say "give time to come up with sources" but they would have come to light already if they existed.  If you want to preserve the article you can do it locally but I wouldn't recreate it, even as a draft, unless the sources are there.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] CaseOh is a popular figure with his popularity only growing.  New sources are inevitable to appear soon.  Draftifying the article will allow it to be accessed by Wikipedia editors and allow for new sources to be added.  Antny08 ( talk ) 15:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "He will get popular, trust me" is not the most compelling argument as it has no obvious date where sources might appear, compared to a work of media, for example.  I don't mind userfication of the article, but I do think that proving notability within the 6 months required for a draft to stay active will be a tall order.  So, you are free to put it in your userspace until such time it merits being a draft per WP:WOOD .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please, do not delete this article.  I have spent so long on it, if it gets deleted I will probably leave Wikipedia.  I really like this website so I do not want to.  New sources will definitely emerge in the next few months, it will not even take 6 months.  CaseOh is a popular figure so new sources are bound to emerge.  Antny08 ( talk ) 16:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait, I apologize, can you explain userfication vs draftifying to me?  I think at may be a bit confused.  Antny08 ( talk ) 16:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft is putting it in draftspace.  However, drafts are still expected to be an article fairly soon and are deleted after a period of inactivity.  Userfication is putting it in your WP:USERSPACE .  They can be kept there indefinitely and are more suited for pages that might be notable but which there is no proof it will happen anytime soon.  I'd not suggest WP:BLACKMAIL however, as it's not going to sway anyone to your side.  People are generally not Wikipedia editors for only a sole article, that suggests some degree of not being here to build an encyclopedia .  One has to be open to a "you win some, you lose some" mentality.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand, I did not mean to come off as blackmail, but if the article gets deleted then it will double my deleted edits count, which will strongly hurt my chances of getting administrator someday.  I want to be an administrator to help people out and to help build Wikipedia, and I do not want all of my hours of work to be for nothing.  If putting it in my user space does not mark the edits as deleted, then I am fine with that as well.  Antny08 ( talk ) 16:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you're focusing on the wrong thing here, having stuff we write changed and deleted is part of the WP-learning process.  It's how we learn how stuff like WP:RS and WP:BLP works.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 17:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, but if I have a lot of deleted edits nobody is going to want to vote for me to become an administrator.  I work really hard on my edits, 99% of them are non-automated edits, so I do not want my hard work actually ending up looking bad for me.  Antny08 ( talk ) 19:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you check some of the discussions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#About_RfA , I think you'll find it hard to find one where discussion about deleted edits had any effect on the outcome.  People look at other things, excellent content creation, understanding of PAG, etc.  But, off-topic.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 20:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually being worried about how something will affect one's adminship later is going into the realm of WP:HATCOLLECTING .  Otherwise I'm not so sure why you'd be so concerned about it, given that it's essentially a purely janitorial role.  You can't do "whatever you want" as an admin so it's something you naturally get when you are already doing the work of an admin and require the tools to expedite it.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify/Userspace: There is no doubt in my mind that CaseOh will eventually qualify for inclusion; but as said by others above, I'm not sure it's now .  I'd say we incubate it until we get even one or two reliable sources.  Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) ( Talk ) 21:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Since all refs currently in the article are from January and forward, there is also a WP:SUSTAINED problem.  Give it a year or two, maybe he will have staying power.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 11:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The WP:SUSTAINED does not define what length of period counts as being “sustained”.  Due to other text in the WP:SUSTAINES and sections surrounding it, I believe it is more talking about flash events like a shooting or something like that, where sources are very new (>1 month) and are likely to go away soon.  The sources about CaseOh are multiple months old for some, and there will most likely be new sources emerging rather than not.  This does not fall under WP:SUSTAINED Antny08 ( talk ) 11:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify/Userfy - Sources present do not demonstrate notability, and I can find none elsewhere.  While I don't think there will be any significant coverage from reliable sources in the near future, draftifying/userfying is probably the best route.  – Pbrks ( t · c ) 04:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be clear, I am also okay with deleting the article, to avoid no consensus.  – Pbrks ( t · c ) 14:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There will be reliable sources in the future.  Case’s popularity has been growing and is still growing since I wrote my first message about his popularity growing.  There is no reason to delete the article, since new sources are bound to emerge.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The following has been moved from my talk page, as it is more relevant here – Pbrks ( t · c ) 15:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why do you believe that CaseOh should be deleted from Wikipedia?  You did not present any arguments, other than the fact that you said “you don’t think that any new sources will appear”.  Multiple other people have stated the exact opposite, including me, so I do not understand why you would think that.  Case’s popularity is constantly growing, and new sources will definitely come out.  Please reconsider in your vote for deletion.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Antny08 : As I said, there are not any reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject.  Saying new sources will definitely come out is a WP:ATA#CRYSTAL argument.  CaseOh does not meet WP:GNG .  – Pbrks ( t · c ) 14:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you read my reasons to keep that I created for the closer, I stated how  1. If he meets WP:SNG (which he does), it says he does not need to meet WP:GNG, and  2. Two of the sources in the article I believe do meet WP:GNG.  I do not believe it is a Crystal argument.  He is a very popular figure with no stop in popularity, so based on the rate of sources now there are gaurenteed to be more soon, it’s hardly even an assumption since it’s pretty much gaurenteed.  You are saying you don’t think that more sources will appear, you are the only one who said that, but most people including me believe the opposite.  Deleting the article makes no sense, since time should be given to improve it.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Antny08 : I do not believe that he meets that SNG criteria.  The sources present have one of two problems: (1) If it is a reliable source (e.g. Esports Illustrated), then it does not contain significant coverage of the subject; and (2) If it contains significant coverage of the subject, then it is not reliable (e.g. Sportskeeda).  It is absolutely, 100% a crystal argument to say that sources will exist in the future.  – Pbrks ( t · c ) 14:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then isn’t it also a crystal argument to say sources won’t exist in the future?  Also, WP:SNG is not WP:GNG.  All you need to do is prove that they won a significant award for WP:SNG , which he did and the sources do prove that.  I think at least some of the ESports Illustrated articles provide significant coverage of him.  It is more than just a list entry, there is a whole paragraph talking about him, and there are 2 photos featured of him in one of the articles, including in the main photo of that article.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Antny08 : Yes, it is a crystal argument to say that arguments won't exist, and while I did mention that I don't believe sources will come in the near future, that was not my rationale.  For one, I do not believe the subject meets WP:NBIO (the Streamer Awards is hardly a well-known award).  Moreover, if you read NBIO, you would have seen that meeting one or more does [criteria] not guarantee that a subject should be included .  Lastly, if the most coverage from a reliable source that we have is "a whole paragraph" and a few images, then the subject certainly is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.  – Pbrks ( t · c ) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In WP:Notability , it states, “A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.“  It says it must either meet GNG OR SNG. The Streamer Awards is not hardly a well-known award . This year, the event had 645,000 concurrent viewers, with similar amounts in previous years. It was broadcasted by many popular celebrities and internet streamers, along with many celebrities in attendance. Less than 100 people have won something from the Streamer Awards, making it significant. That viewer count also definitely makes it well-known. Antny08 ( talk ) 15:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The (intentional) problem here is that the "well-known" is subjective, so it is a matter of opinion. I am aware of the viewership, and I do not consider that to be a significant enough number to be deemed "well-known". Well-known awards would be the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, Grammy Awards, ARIA Music Awards, The Emmy Awards, etc. Lastly, a presumption of notability is not the same as a guarantee of notability. A presumption of notability means we give the subject an initial "benefit of the doubt" at AfD. It does not mean it gets a "free pass" at AfD. – Pbrks ( t · c ) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, but it does not seem like anybody is giving CaseOh the “benefit of the doubt”.  Also, the ARIA Music Awards only received less than 300,000 (238,000 to be exact according to https://tags.news.com.au/ ) viewers last year.  So if you perceive that to be well-known, then so is The Streamer Awards.  645,000 viewers is well-known.  That would be like the entire population of Luxembourg watching the Streamer Awards.  The 645k figure is just the peak concurrent viewer amount, not the total viewer amount.  While there does not seem to be a total viewer count (I have not researched that much), it is likely much higher than the 645,000.  Antny08 ( talk ) 15:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Antny08 : If you are trying to argue that the three-year-old Streamer Awards are a more well-known event than the 37-year-old ARIA Music Awards, we are done here, I believe.  Again, what "well-known" means is a matter of opinion, and I have stated mine numerous times.  I will WP:DROPTHESTICK and let the AfD run its course.  – Pbrks ( t · c ) 16:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, we can end this debate here.  Personally, I have never heard of the ARIA Music Awards.  What matters it that currently, the Streamer Awards are much more popular.  “Well-known” is subject to interpretation, but you can most likely agree that viewership plays a major part.  Have a good one Antny08 ( talk ) 16:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most sources are from non-reliable places (examples include WP:SPORTSKEEDA ) Yes he is very popular , but that doesn’t constitute most things.  Remember WP:BFDI lvrlol / sv1ad talk 14:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: AFDs like this one, with voluminous comments, are why bolded votes are helpful.  There is a lot of debate going on here, like comparing viewer count for awards shows (?) that is not helpful for coming to a consensus.  Several reminders: Do not bludgeon this discussion and reply to every comment you disagree with, this rarely convinces people to change their minds.  Secondly, we base notability on existing sources, in the article or brought up in this discussion, not on hypothetical future media coverage.  Finally, I am wary of Draftifying options as I think the article would stay in Draft space for a few minutes before being moved back to main space and then we would start AFD2.0 immediately afterward.  Let's not do this whole thing over again in a week or two.  But regardless of my apprehension, consensus will be honored.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just for clarification: I would not move it back to draftspace in a few weeks.  I would be fine with waiting multiple months if needed until new sources emerge.  Antny08 ( talk ) 11:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete with a comment.  All right, I will try to summarise my perspective from the discussion above.  First, kudoz to @ User:stwalkerster for the reference analysis table, until I learn the ins and outs I will always have praise for those who do the table.  What we have here is someone who has recently gained some sort of popularity in a niche environment, and there is minor coverage of this through sourcing that is very weakly relevant in terms of general notability, at best.  Significant policy has been pointed out, for instance, that follower and viewer counts don't really add up to notability; viewership may play a part, but it's also minor.  I seldom do outright delete indications and rather do comments, but this case is rather clear.  In short: If this person does turn out to be generally popular in the long term, with solid references and sustained coverage of his work, then it will be time for an article.  We don't do crystalballing as to what might and what might not transpire.  That time has not yet come, and we do not guess, it's as simple as that.  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 08:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not arguing with your claim, but then suggest userfying it.  It doesn't make sense to delete unless you think it will NEVER merit an article.  Antny08 ( talk ) 11:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To quote Nikopol (played by Thomas Kretschmann ) from the movie Immortel.  Ad Vitam - I think so, I'm not sure, but above all - I don't know.  It would still need to be heavily amended with proper referencing to fit mainspace.  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which is why you draftify / userfy it, so it can be worked on by Wikipedia editors over time, adding references and making the article better.  Antny08 ( talk ) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closer - Antny08 has created Draft:CaseOh (streamer) via a copy-and-paste move.  Depending on the result of this AfD, this article should have its history merged into the draft, or the draft should be deleted as well.  – Pbrks ( t · c ) 14:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it should be merged there if it is decided to draft.  If not, I can remove the draft.  Antny08 ( talk ) 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Per Stwalkerster's table above, the sources listed do not seem to pass the notability test.  Perhaps in the future, but this is too soon .  Recommend moving to the userspace or draftify for incubation and re-publishing if/when reliable sources that support notability are found.  nf utvol ( talk ) 11:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  The article is written in a promotional tone.  MAL MALDIVE ( talk ) 12:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per reasoning in source analysis table.  I don't doubt subject will become notable by Wikipedia's notability guidelines eventually (with emphasis on Wikipedia's notability), though CaseOh is undoubtedly notable in pop culture.  Unless reliable sources can be found, we don't need the article as-is.  I think a draft is absolutely fine, provided that the quality of sources is improved and the writing avoids a promotional tone.  Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Insufficient depth of coverages from reliable sources.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 12:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails GNG, per analysis table.  🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:13, 3 April 2024 (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: delete