RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/EazyOnMe

EazyOnMe | Result: Deleted. And our approach to YouTubers will never be the same again.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) Trying to establish a precedent about whether youtube celebrities who are tangentially missional should have pages. My own feeling is that one of three conditions need to apply: they're modestly popular and peddle woo/other bullshit, they're modestly popular and are a self-identified skeptic/debunker, or they're really fucking popular and touch on missional things from time to time.  This seems to be a case of modestly popular and touching on relevant things.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We really need a guideline establishing how much subscribers/average views these Youtubers need (or how much money they make through donations) before we make articles on them. 17:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Remind me again, where do we have policy discussions proper? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking pretty much the same thing. The constant stream of articles about YouTubers is getting to be a problem. And that problem needs to be nipped in the bud now. When supporting the motion to delete articles, I used to keep saying, "A nobody with a blog is still a nobody." Well, the modern equivalent of that is, "A nobody with a YouTube channel is still a nobody." I think we really need to have a discussion about this in the Saloon Bar and to thrash out some strong guidelines, if not actual rules. I look forward to the day when I can just go ahead and delete an article about a YouTuber who only has 50 subscribers or about one who just hates everything equally without any discussion at all. Spud (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) An article about a relatively average YouTuber with little to nothing of note. Kill it. 17:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Doesn't strike me as being interesting enough for an article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  17:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Ikanreed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) As I said above, having a YouTube channel now is the modern equivalent of what having a blog used to be. And we don't need an article about every nobody that's got one. Spud (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) No indication as to why the person is significant. Count Bezukhov (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) "they're really fucking popular and touch on missional things from time to time" - sorry but that's not good enough for me. In the past we've deleted articles on authors and TV shows (and even an entire TV channel) because they only "touched on missional things." Everybody, in the end, touches on missional things. I think we need more to justify an article. 92.5.137.91 (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)

Goat
I'm seeing a lot of documenting of this guy's views, but not much debunking of those views. This is particularly disheartening given that several of these views, such as his views on white privilege, are demonstrably fallacious. 15:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fossil record indicates this page is mostly by one user who is a fan, which is a risk of having pages off(ish)-mission with low(ish) notability. I've never heard of this person before this, but they're sorta kinda maybe semi-recognizable as youtube fame goes, according to stats posted on the talk page.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Two choices then, someone adds some some debunking or kills off the article. Either way this fandumb version must die, for the good of all. 16:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If it was just that, I'd change it myself and not do an AFD. But if we did debunk, are they worth keeping?  That's still an open question per them being a minor, not really all-that bullshit focused either on the pro or anti side, and not that famous.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)