512:). This is not good enough under BLP rules, and as I said I contend that it doesn't satisfy notability either. Insider and The Daily Dot are somewhat better, but still in-the-news churnalism that doesn't justify the existence of an article built entirely on biographical controversies. Considering the lack of other sourcing and the fact that Carson will likely not return to the public eye, the article will in likelihood remain in this state indefinitely.
461:, as they are rooted in fact and don't appear to be blowing the story out of proportion or twisting details of it. I'm not sure what you meant by calling "the events detailed in the allegations" scandal-mongering/gossip. Even if current policy does not see Carson as notable (which I'm not convinced it doesn't), I would push for the inclusion of this article based on
277:(with two events), as no reliable sources seem to discuss his actual YouTube/streaming career (the type of content he produces, for example, is only mentioned in passing in the sources about his controversies). Simple markers of popularity in the form of subscriber counts (currently sourced from SocialBlade) are not sufficient to establish notability under
408:.You alluded to the idea that there should be a different standard of "notability" for online entertainers, but I disagree with this view – I still think the GNG is important as a foundation for all articles because it establishes that simple popularity (i.e. subscriber count) is not good enough for an article. I generally share the views espoused in
465:. Any subject who has millions of people actively interested in and aware of them is notable in my mind, regardless of their coverage in secondary reliable sources. I would say this of any subject with a following of millions, which is why I stated above that there should be a guideline dealing with internet notability.
639:
of the subject outside of the event. As there are zero of these in the article, and no one has provided any, I struggle to see how it passes the GNG (AviationFreak is proposing a notability standard outside of GNG, which is an argument in its own right but not one under the purview of that guideline,
403:
under the GNG (the current governing guideline) before these allegations is clearly false. As I stated, the article currently has zero SIGCOV sources about his pre-allegation career, and I am unable to find any through my searches. If we follow that guideline, this is a case of a non-notable
375:
of his prior notability and status. If an "average joe" had been accused of sexual misconduct involving a minor, it would cause a small and local media blip. In this case, it is much larger. I would be fine with a split of the article into "CallMeCarson" and "CallMeCarson sexual misconduct
364:
applies here. The guideline is clearly designed to weed out articles about folks who were not in any way notable prior to an event, and received coverage only relating to that event. This could be used in cases like
Kimberly "Sweet Brown" Wilkins, which redirects (as it should) to
505:
Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not
Knowledge's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial
553:), and I'd add that King wouldn't be non-notable without the allegations. There are other sources writing about CallMeCarson, and I also agree that there should be a better standard for YouTubers, who can attract massive popularity with little attention from the media.
416:
GNG also helps solve this problem: if there was reliable sourcing outside of these controversies, we could write a balanced biography. Because there aren't, it is impossible to do this and the article will remain in this
242:
109:
104:
203:
360:
on YouTuber (or internet personality/entertainer more generally) notability, but that's another discussion for another time. As far as this article goes, I don't think
236:
333:
313:
499:
I don't think enforcing policies on living persons is a point of bureaucracy, but rather one of our most important duties as responsible article writers. From
99:
150:
457:
is only designed to apply to people who were not in any way notable prior to their involvement in an event. I also don't think the article's sources are
135:
435:
Even outside of this notability-outside-of-one-event problem, the events detailed in the allegations are frankly scandal-mongering/gossip material (
550:
508:
Right now, the article is question is using the
Toronto Sun (a tabloid) and Newsweek (a source considered "generally not reliable" at
616:
176:
171:
356:. Full disclosure, I accepted the Draft of this article a few days ago at AfC. In my opinion there should be a guideline with a
649:
623:
586:
562:
525:
494:
476:
448:
430:
387:
367:
345:
325:
305:
180:
130:
123:
90:
17:
376:
allegations" (or something similar), but in this case I feel the subject is clearly notable and the article should be kept.
257:
163:
224:
144:
140:
70:
558:
490:
666:
485:
applies here - it's important to have this article up, even if King's past YouTube career isn't well-documented.
47:
218:
544:
473:
384:
289:
214:
662:
554:
513:
486:
458:
436:
43:
167:
612:
264:
250:
159:
27:
595:
571:
540:
468:
394:
379:
285:
60:
582:
482:
119:
36:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
661:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
42:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
645:
521:
509:
444:
426:
418:
357:
341:
321:
301:
293:
604:
454:
405:
361:
278:
274:
230:
64:
288:, as Carson's status as a high-profile individual is questionable given the criteria in
63:
provided a more compelling case for notability than the nomination did in demonstrating
409:
599:
575:
500:
462:
82:
578:
197:
641:
539:: I nominated the article for creation after rewriting it. Mostly, I agree with
517:
440:
422:
400:
337:
317:
297:
635:), then there must be at least one source (preferably multiple) that contain
414:
Biographies should not be dominated by a single event in the subject's life.
77:
633:
reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event
657:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
399:
The assertion that Carson was "notable" in the sense of
193:
189:
185:
249:
371:. In this case, however, Carson's coverage occurred
110:
Articles for deletion/CallMeCarson (3rd nomination)
105:
Articles for deletion/CallMeCarson (2nd nomination)
50:). No further edits should be made to this page.
669:). No further edits should be made to this page.
332:Note: This discussion has been included in the
312:Note: This discussion has been included in the
516:(an essay) sums up my position rather well. —
334:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
263:
8:
151:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
314:list of People-related deletion discussions
453:I hold to my previously stated views that
331:
311:
296:also seems like an appropriate essay. —
97:
632:
504:
413:
7:
421:state for the foreseeable future. —
631:. If this is not a case of BLP1E (
100:Articles for deletion/CallMeCarson
24:
574:laid out. The new coverage meets
570:: Keep, per the explanation that
136:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
439:), so they are not notable. —
368:Ain't Nobody Got Time for That
1:
650:01:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
624:14:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
587:08:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
563:07:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
526:10:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
495:03:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
477:15:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
449:09:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
431:08:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
388:07:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
346:05:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
326:05:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
306:05:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
91:16:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
126:(AfD)? Read these primers!
686:
284:Also possibly applicable:
659:Please do not modify it.
598:. Article easily passes
404:individual faced with a
39:Please do not modify it.
95:AfDs for this article:
273:Fairly clear case of
124:Articles for deletion
637:significant coverage
481:I'd also argue that
59:. Users felt that
348:
328:
141:Guide to deletion
131:How to contribute
74:
71:non-admin closure
677:
640:to be clear). —
622:
620:
607:
555:Theleekycauldron
487:Theleekycauldron
472:
398:
383:
358:bright-line rule
268:
267:
253:
201:
183:
121:
89:
80:
68:
41:
685:
684:
680:
679:
678:
676:
675:
674:
673:
667:deletion review
621:
610:
605:
603:
466:
392:
377:
290:WP:PUBLICFIGURE
210:
174:
158:
155:
118:
115:
114:
78:
76:
55:The result was
48:deletion review
37:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
683:
681:
672:
671:
653:
652:
626:
609:
589:
565:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
514:WP:NOTATABLOID
479:
459:WP:SENSATIONAL
437:WP:SENSATIONAL
433:
350:
349:
329:
271:
270:
207:
154:
153:
148:
138:
133:
116:
113:
112:
107:
102:
96:
94:
53:
52:
32:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
682:
670:
668:
664:
660:
655:
654:
651:
647:
643:
638:
634:
630:
627:
625:
618:
614:
608:
601:
597:
596:AviationFreak
593:
590:
588:
584:
580:
577:
573:
572:AviationFreak
569:
566:
564:
560:
556:
552:
549:
546:
542:
541:AviationFreak
538:
535:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
502:
498:
497:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
478:
475:
471:
470:
469:AviationFreak
464:
460:
456:
452:
451:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
432:
428:
424:
420:
415:
411:
407:
402:
396:
395:AviationFreak
391:
390:
389:
386:
382:
381:
380:AviationFreak
374:
370:
369:
363:
359:
355:
352:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
330:
327:
323:
319:
315:
310:
309:
308:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
282:
280:
276:
266:
262:
259:
256:
252:
248:
244:
241:
238:
235:
232:
229:
226:
223:
220:
216:
213:
212:Find sources:
208:
205:
199:
195:
191:
187:
182:
178:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
156:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
137:
134:
132:
129:
128:
127:
125:
120:
111:
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
93:
92:
88:
86:
81:
72:
66:
62:
61:AviationFreak
58:
51:
49:
45:
40:
34:
33:
29:
26:
19:
658:
656:
636:
628:
591:
567:
547:
536:
467:
410:WP:HARM#TEST
378:
372:
366:
353:
283:
272:
260:
254:
246:
239:
233:
227:
221:
211:
160:CallMeCarson
117:
84:
56:
54:
38:
35:
28:CallMeCarson
286:WP:BLPCRIME
237:free images
483:WP:NOTBURO
663:talk page
510:WP:RSPSRC
506:judgment.
419:WP:PSEUDO
294:WP:PSEUDO
44:talk page
665:or in a
617:ICE CUBE
551:contribs
455:WP:BLP1E
406:WP:BLP1E
362:WP:BLP1E
279:WP:BASIC
275:WP:BLP1E
204:View log
145:glossary
65:WP:BLP1E
46:or in a
629:Comment
606:ASTIG😎
373:because
243:WP refs
231:scholar
177:protect
172:history
122:New to
642:Goszei
600:WP:GNG
594:: Per
576:WP:GNG
518:Goszei
501:WP:BLP
463:WP:IAR
441:Goszei
423:Goszei
338:Goszei
318:Goszei
298:Goszei
215:Google
181:delete
613:ICE T
412:that
258:JSTOR
219:books
198:views
190:watch
186:links
16:<
646:talk
592:Keep
583:talk
579:~RAM
568:Keep
559:talk
545:talk
537:Keep
522:talk
491:talk
445:talk
427:talk
401:WP:N
354:Keep
342:talk
336:. —
322:talk
316:. —
302:talk
251:FENS
225:news
194:logs
168:talk
164:edit
85:Talk
57:Keep
648:)
524:)
447:)
429:)
344:)
324:)
304:)
265:TWL
202:– (
79:MJL
615:•
602:.
585:)
561:)
503::
493:)
474:💬
385:💬
292:.
281:.
245:)
196:|
192:|
188:|
184:|
179:|
175:|
170:|
166:|
67:.
644:(
619:)
611:(
581:(
557:(
548:·
543:(
520:(
489:(
443:(
425:(
397::
393:@
340:(
320:(
300:(
269:)
261:·
255:·
247:·
240:·
234:·
228:·
222:·
217:(
209:(
206:)
200:)
162:(
147:)
143:(
87:‐
83:‐
75:–
73:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.