Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaiden Animations (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaiden Animations

[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)

I originally created the first version of this page last year, but it was deleted at AFD as non-notable. I recently PRODded this particular page initially by accident because I didn't realize that, as this page has been to AFD before, PRODding is not an option. I previously tagged this reincarnation of this article for speedy deletion under WP:G4, but someone else removed that template. I think that this page should be deleted (as it has been several times already) because Jaiden is not notable, either as a person herself or for this channel. Coverage in reliable sources, while it does exist, is limited to passing mentions that do not convey nearly enough in-depth coverage to allow this person/channel to meet WP:BIO or any other notability guidelines. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search finds no good reason to overturn previous AfD decision, or any justification under notability guidelines for the article's recreation in Wikipedia. Note that draft was moved to mainspace after AfC declined multiple times for notability. Bakazaka (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous commenter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I was the one who removed the CSD tag. I do agree that the article was moved to mainspace too soon, but I've tried to improve the sourcing of the article since then. Admittedly, coverage in reliable sources is still sparse, but she's a prominent YouTube animator who appeared in YouTube Rewind and frequently collaborates with other notable YouTube creators, so I think she's at least somewhat notable. I found some more sources that discuss her in slightly more detail, but I'm a bit unsure about the reliability: [1] [2] [3] [4] Ahiijny (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The linked sources above are blogs and clickbait sites, not WP:RS supporting notability. Bakazaka (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one listed reference contains more than a trivial mention of the subject. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or return to draft - Despite news coverage being sparse (which is unfortunately common for YouTubers that haven't done or said anything controversial), Jaiden is still relevant being involved in the 2017 YouTube Rewind and collaborations with other YouTubers. Not to mention the single she released with David Brown. More work does need to be done on the article, though. AwesumIndustrys (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AwesumIndustrys, then draft-ify ie return to draft? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above user may have a conflict of interest with this deletion. On their user page they describe themselves as a YouTube personality. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tyw7 1) I would be perfectly fine with the article being moved back to the draft namespace as the article, as I've said, does need work to be a decent and informative article. 2) I don't really have a conflict of interest. While I do call myself a YouTube personality,that is only technically correct. I am not notable enough for a YouTube article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesumIndustrys (talk • contribs) 23:42, August 25, 2018 (UTC)

Why would we draftify an article for which no reliable sources have been presented?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - passing mentions in the sources provided, blogs and unreliable sources posted above. Jaiden doesn't have the coverage that passes WP:Webcontent or WP:GNG . Maybe a case of WP:too soon but not a keeper, so delete. As an aside, the whole 'collabed with other well known youtubers' is fallacious: notability is not inherited. JC7V-constructive zone 22:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment I find it alarming that the page was moved to mainspace after TWO editors declined it's submission. The content of the page didn't change much between the decline and the current version. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this article already in user draft space User:ShemeshShlomi/sandbox. I've updated that copy with the current mainspace article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt A search turned up no RS at all in GNews or GBooks. The sources given in the article can be analyzed as follows:

First up is an article form Flourish. Flourish is a PR Marketing agency, not a journalism outfit. Check their about page, where it says "Everything you say and do as a brand or business is PR." So no RS sources so far.
second source given in their Youtube page. This is ok for non-controversial claims, but not for establishing notability. SO no RS sources yet.
An article on Heavy that only has this to say about Jaiden: "They were especially excited to see their favorite creators featured in the video, including notable animators on YouTube who were previously not featured in the annual video like Jaiden Animations and Rebecca Parham." Ok tally so far: one sentence of RS in a publication that I mostly see publishing articles like "Five fast facts you need to know about -insert name of latest murderer-".
A short blog-type post from Mental Music, which is a teen podcast on music topics. All we have thus far is the one sentence above from Heavy.
an Article on Tubefilter, which comments on Youtube channels. Jaiden gets a mention at the end of one sentence.

Based on the five "refs" used in the article, there is no RS to support notability. I see other refs provided further up in this Afd, which aren't good either. And remember, human beings cannot live without at least some SALT each day. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, weirdly it looks like it ALREADY has been salted by User:Alexf. No idea how it could have been re-created. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 18, 2018: Danielcool123 moved the article, which was declined at AFC, into mainspace, and then removes AFC template. But you are right, it was create protected during this time! Perhaps create protection does not apply to an article already in Draft? Maybe someone tried to do a end run around the admin Alexf? I do not get it either. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, Wikipedia bug for WP:VILLAGEPUMP? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a bug, let's wait to see what Alexf says.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, already posted Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Salted_article_re-created --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Alexf --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belated comment. Sorry I was out of town as indicated in my page. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and (re-)salt, mostly per ThatMontrealIP. Two passing mentions do not constitute anything like the level of notability required for an article here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:43, 26 August 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.