View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Beat

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. This AfD was heavily tainted by off-wiki canvassing, which explains the many Keep votes not based on P&G from inexperienced editors. One noteworthy exception was Dclemens1971, whose argument was solidly based on guidelines and source analysis. However, rough consensus among P&G-based views was still in favour of deletion, with draftification receiving very limited support. Owen× ☎ 13:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Beat

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Mr. Beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have marked this article for deletion. While I'm a big fan of Mr. Beat's work, and would ideally like this article kept, I don't think that he passes WP:GNG right now. All of the non-social media sources are local sources, or not reliable at all, indicating that he has little to no national significance. Beat is a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL content creator; achieving 1 million subscribers is a much less notable feat than it was even 10 years ago. I completed a WP:BEFORE search but I couldn't find anything meaningful that wasn't already in the article. I don't see a WP:NAUTHOR pass either, since he's released only two books, and each only has one local review. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:4D29:6661:1D4E:6058 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. Beat has coverage in local press, which counts towards Mr. Beat being a notable figure. Additionally, this coverage is more than many YouTubers who have pages on here receive. NesserWiki (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Mr. Beat is one of the more famous/notable YouTube historians on the site. If he was less notable, I may be in favor of deletion but this is not the case. Lertaheiko (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep basically what everyone else above who has said keep said. Daemonspudguy (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that something that only receives local coverage is automatically not notable. There are thousands of high schools, library systems and people with Wikipedia articles that will probably only ever receive local coverage, but a reliable, independent secondary source with significant coverage counts towards notability whether its a tiny news station or the BBC. Pointing to subscriber count as evidence of non-notability is about as useful as pointing to it as evidence of notability. (I will note that Mr. Beat posted a screenshot of this discussion to Bluesky (which is how I got here) but not in a WP:Canvassing manner probably with good intentions, but it's definitely become a WP:Canvassing issue regardless). Edit: Given that the nominator has clarified their justification for the deletion, I went through the sources again, and I feel like there's one source that definitely counts toward notability, the aforementioned Lawrence Journal article, and one source that might count towards notability, a sorta review of his SCOTUS book which includes some commentary beyond just the interview component with Mr. Beat. If we're following WP:THREE, then I would probably suggest Draftify given that he seems about one source off from notability. Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the very definition of canvassing... SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to or posting a a discussion is not in itself canvassing. Canvassing needs to be done with the intention of influencing the outcome. Given that the text of the post is just self-deprecating humor, I highly doubt that intention exists. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source Lertaheiko (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with what the above editors have said. Local news coverage counts just the same as major outlets in terms of notability. As popular Internet personalities become more prevalent and the mainstream press becomes more separated from Internet culture, we as Wikipedia editors must reckon with the fact that a notable person might not always be covered in the mainstream press. So, if we keep on using big coverage in the press as being "notable", we end up with archaic standards that will most likely miss out on notable people in the future.
All that being said, however, when comparing Mr. Beat to others, he unquestionably surpasses the requirements for being notable enough to have his own Wiki page. LizardDoggos (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC) — LizardDoggos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - I am the IP editor who initially nominated this for deletion, and I'm surprised at the sudden burst of canvassing votes here. They should all be discarded for the purposes of determining consensus; consisting of a mixture of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and claiming I'm trying to discredit local sources: my point is that they are all WP:ROUTINE coverage of him. Doing stuff like local talks about his books, where he mostly does the speaking instead of it being about him doesn't amount to notability here. We need sources that discuss him specifically, simple as that. The only good source here is the Lawrence Journal, and a single article doesn't surpass the WP:THREE sources generally needed to clear the bar of notability. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:2081:789F:4237:C594 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, GNG says "multiple," not "three." WP:THREE is a non-binding tip sheet to help AfD participants make the best possible case. And PS I mention GNG-qualifying sources in my !vote below. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Mr. Beat is a relevant topic and a very prominent YouTuber with tons of credible sources about him, and CLEARLY it should be kept. Skcin7 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTNOTABLE? 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:D9D2:6AAD:B5E6:512F (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Just not enough coverage for notability... I don't find very many RS, [1] is one, but I don't consider it enough. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Found this from the same source. Probably leaning draftify. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: or draftify, per Oaktree. (yes, I'm here from the tweet.) charlotte 👸♥ 02:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I decided to look into the local coverage of the subject a bit more closely, since there have been statements that it's been largely promotional. While some of them do seem that way, such as the Lawrence Times article about a book discussion, this is hardly the only source. He has had an extended interview on KQTV[1], a television station in St. Joseph, Missouri, which is in the Kansas City area. To reference what the nominator was saying about the local sources not being great because they are routine, I would like to add that this interview does not appear directly connected with any planned event, such as a book release or announcement. I do not believe this counts as routine. His interview with KCUR-FM would also fall under this, since it is a reliable, third-party, independent secondary source that is also not simply announcing an event or product, but is an actual interview; while the written portion of the article is more about that, the actual interview delves much deeper. I will acknowledge that this article is a bit short, but I cannot in good faith agree that this article should be deleted. I think he does fulfill the GNG, and my vote is for it to be kept. ~Junedude433(talk) 20:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Mr. Beat talks with KQ2 News about the current political climate & the 2024 Presidential Election". KQTV. July 30, 2024.
  • Interviews are not secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is worth noting that Mr Beat posted this page onto his bluesky yesterday with the caption “I am printing this off and putting it on my wall to motivate me for the rest of my life”, likely prompting the influx of people to comment keep. IP should be aware of this and prevent heavy bias in favor of keeping. (Hell, he may be reading this very comment right now, in which case I’m sorry that your wiki page may be deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B14C:3B7F:ECFA:A361:729B:73A2 (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is a page on Mr. Beats website that that lists a bunch of reliable sources related to him. May be useful in finding sources. Lertaheiko (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a duplicate vote and should be struck. 2A02:C7C:FE2B:5C00:258C:5E4C:489D:E09E (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I reviewed this during New Page Review and I think there's a slim WP:GNG pass here based on WP:SIGCOV in the Tonganoxie Mirror, the Lawrence Journal-World, Fox 4, and The Pitch KC. There is no rule under GNG that local sources are to be rejected -- the nominator may be thinking of WP:AUD, but that guideline applies to organizations/WP:NORG, not GNG. Marginal case, but these count toward GNG, and in a borderline case I always want to lean toward retention. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tonganoxie is promotional and an interview, LJW is paywalled, Fox 4 is an interview, and the Pitch is a book review but is also an interview. None of those are secondary! SportingFlyer T·C 19:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:PAYWALL, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." I was able to access the LJW piece and it checks out as WP:SIGCOV: multiple interviewees, lengthy, significant coverage. The Fox 4 source is not only based on an interview; it also quotes several other people, demonstrating depth of reporting and coverage. The Pitch includes the author's perspective in addition to material from Beat. All of these sources are unambiguously secondary. The Mirror's probably the weakest source because it's got a local-boosterish tone. Even if you discard it, though, we still have a GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2025 (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.