Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twomad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 keep‎. The consideration regarding whether the subject has enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG was responded to with the source assessment, and arguments for deletion or merging did not properly respond to or refute the source assessment, so there is consensus for keeping here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twomad

[edit]


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

Twomad (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)
Comment: Every third-party celebrity wiki I've found with a page on him ends up only citing his youtube and twitter accounts. There's a few articles on his SA accusations, but I wouldn't touch them as they haven't met WP:BLPCRIME. There's really not much to write with here. mooshberry->talk; 22:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean its a little bit of wishful thinking assuming that they're going to site high quality sources. There have been several mainstream and quality sources referencing him in the past, those could be used here. MarkJames1989 (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia, and it seems like I see a lot of articles with information I find of use for me getting nominated for deletion. I don't even care if there is one paragraph in an article because in my opinion, information is information, and Twomad is no exception. Carnival200 (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being new, you should probably give a read to WP:NOT andWP:BLP1E. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 14:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. There are plenty of times in which I've tried to find information on an individual with a deleted WP page -- only to look up the archived version and find exactly what I'm looking for. Perhaps WP should consider amending its deletion policy. Webmaster098 (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly WP isn't a fandom, so we can't just have barely notable information on here. I'm sure you both are aware that there is a couple youtube/social media specific fandom sites out there?
You both should spend some time looking at our notability guidelines, WP:WEB and WP:BIO both apply in this is situation. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 (Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 11:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does death. The fact that someone died does not suddenly make them noteworthy. Noteworthiness is achieved by what one does when they are alive. Granted - how someone died could be noteworthy in and of itself - but that too does not stand the test here. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refuting that argument, isn't it logical to argue that an individual with no degree of notability wouldn't be covered by publications and so using his alias. Assuming twomad had absolutely no degree of notability, why would publications use the title "YouTuber twomad dead at 23" and not "23-year-old found dead by overdose" Célestin Denis (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a subject is noteworthy by publications for one event doesn't immediately mean it's notable enough for Wikipedia. TappyTurtle (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just checked the article and it's low-quality. There are not many reliable sources. I think it is something that shouldn't have its own article. Plus, twomad isn't notable for anything he was just a shitposting troller. Autograph84 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that the low-quality article should be an indicator that it needs to be updated. And including all the stories, allegations and rumors can make people decide what they think is the case. It can’t just be one sided because that will lead to conflict online where people who have already heard the allegations and people who already supported Twomad argue about how the article is incorrect because it doesn’t align with their opinion which is a result of reading many other opinions. 92.39.195.160 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, twomad isn't worthy of anything for him to have an article and again there's little reliable info about bro. I just say add him in Deaths in 2024 and call it a day. Autograph84 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've moved the article to draft space. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should've waited for consensus before moving to draft . Regardless, I will be updating the draft with more information and sources. I understand that the current article was not up to Wikipedia standards but I was actively working on the content before you draftified it. I am confident this subject can pass WP:N and will continue my search for sources. Célestin Denis (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the question of "no reliable sources" existing before death could currently be disputed by this South Korean article by JoongAng Ilbo:[1] Célestin Denis (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His sexual abuse allegations were also covered by the Daily Dot which used to be considered reliable until 2022 switching over to a no-consensus as of now: [2] Célestin Denis (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP/WP:BDP isn't a wait and see thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I’ve said this before but he lacks notability to have his own Article he only ever made small cameos on the mainstream news back during the Zoom trolling days which isn’t notable enough to be considered for an Article, a worthwhile comparison is the Vtubers Froot And Veibae who had an entire dedicated section on the BBC yet are still not notable enough to have dedicated Articles. The Article itself is an incoherent mess and fails to mention pretty much anything he was known for on the Internet (Ex: Goodnight Girl, Zoom Trolling, Hasan Beef, Abuse Allegations, Etc.) which notably most of these don’t have reliable sources discussing them which furthers my view that he isn’t notable enough for an Article. InternetEnigma (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Article itself is an incoherent mess and fails to mention pretty much anything he was known for on the Internet" Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia in which ANYONE can edit, right? Can't somebody just mention those and save the edits? "Notably most of these don’t have reliable sources" Knowyourmeme exists. NoahMusic2009 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NoahMusic2009: Somebody can edit the article and click Save, but they'd probably be reverted quickly. Information included on Wikipedia has to meet some policies and guidelines, such as being verifiable based on reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Knowyourmeme is a fun site, but it is user-generated (i.e. anyone can edit) so it is inherently unreliable for our purposes. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 03:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Based on a lack of notability, the article should be deleted. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources aside from a single event and the article is based almost entirely on unreliable sources. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is of bad quality, and was only made because he died. Simply not notable enough to warrant its own article - just go to Wikitubia or something. qw3rty 06:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay i get the idea, but i feel he can be the objection to this ruling. Mainly because of the huge response this has been getting, especially all the dog-piling (rightfully so, guy was a huge pedo). I suggest not for a deletion, but instead, a definite retooling. I do agree with the fact the article in question is poorly done and definitely needs a lot of fixing to do. He has a decent enough following and impact, that a page could be in place, however it is built upon haste Bruh32123 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bruh32123 Sorry, but no. There isn't a single person or topic in a million universes that's exempt from the notability requirements. Even pulling the "ignore all rules" card, you'd have to provide a genuinely compelling, flawless argument on why he should be the exception. So far, your argument looks like a "right great wrongs" type. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly that's fair, I just wanted to put my two cents into it.
    There's definitely plenty of issues with it Bruh32123 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Seeing as how a new article was created to replace the drafted version, I feel compelled to repost these two sources that might get us somewhere. In addition to the ones pointed out above, this scholarly article writes about his content in several hundred words, and this NY Daily News (reliable per WP:RSPSS) piece reported on his death alongside aspects of his career. Not officially voting yet, however. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again - just because someone is mentioned in a publication does not mean they are noteworthy enough to garner a WP article. I've been mentioned in RS more than a dozen times - yet the only appropriate WP pages I should ever have is my talk & personal pages. This guy simply fails to meet the test for notability, and wasn't notable enough to have a WP Article when he was alive. That does not change now that he is dead. WP is not a collection of obituaries. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 14:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Picard's Facepalm 1: If you actually read the first source, it's quite disingenuous to say he's only just mentioned. It's a clear example of WP:SIGCOV from before his death. And 2: that "wasn't notable when alive" argument isn't as convincing as you think it is. When it comes to people in creative fields especially, a person may get little if any coverage about their life and career until the moment after their death. In that coverage, reliable outlets may write about their life in such detail that it contributes to their notability beyond just a WP:BLP1E context. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was known for popularizing "zoom bombing" and his collaboration with online creator Belle Delphine. He had a decently large social media following particularly on Twitter and Youtube. NoahMusic2009 (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for the "zoom bombing" claim? sixtynine • whaddya want? • 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beemer69 See source table below. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who said that? How was his death notable, exactly? He apparently overdosed. ODing is not a notable method of death. Having a YT channel does not make one notable, either. Is WP to start creating articles for every Joe that has a YT channel and ODs? C'mon... --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 17:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge."
this should be WHY we keep it. wiki is meant to help people find info on topics, including youtubers who arent as socially relevant as they once were. there are pages on here that havent been touched in years and are more obscure than twomad, but they should stay because wiki is an encyclopedia that helps the people who want to learn about a certain topic. twomads death isnt the only notable thing about him, he was pretty important in the youtube sphere for a bit. he has been trending on twitter with 300k tweets and his channel was sizable enough to be known. THATS why his death is notable. not because he was some random bad dude who just happened to have a youtube channel and overdosed on drugs, but because he has over a quarter of a million tweets on him, was a popular meme figure for at least a year or two, and a youtube channel with more subscribers than the population of north macedonia. BobLavaBot (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I will say yet again - he apparently wasn't notable enough to have a WP article when he was alive. That does not change now that he is dead. ```` --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 17:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't perfect. I'd be absurd to assume that it had an article for everything considered "notable." The fact that the article didn't exist previously shouldn't stop it from exisisting now. Chelk (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the only thing that has changed is the fact that they died - it absolutely should stop it. Dying other than by notable means doesn't change the fact that it wasn't notable before. It is pretty obvious that "being a YouTuber" and "being a streamer" didn't make him notable up to 4 days ago. Being a dead one still doesn't. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 15:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Articles are kept because their topic meets the notability guidelines, not because it exists. TappyTurtle (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I'll rephrase the !vote in a little bit. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EVENTCRIT, deaths are usually not notable, particularly when the cause of death itself is not unusual. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom: twomad has evidently not been mentioned in enough actual sources to warrant an article. Overdosing while playing Overwatch does not make someone notable, and I don't see that his death in itself is notable either. Put his death in the Deaths in 2024 article, sure, but I don't see it as being any more noteworthy than that. DarkRevival (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a general reminder, having a large following on any social media platform, on its own, is not proof of notability nor justification for a Wikipedia article. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, especially taken into consideration that followers can be bought.
    I have taken a look at his Twitter/X for example he has barely 200 interactions on most of his posts while having 566K followers and a few hundred K views (which may also have started mostly because of his unfortunate passing).
    On his YouTube a lot of comments and such only seem to be from after his passing went viral (again, a case of "high views and subscribers but little interaction").
    I don't want to accuse him of buying his views and subscribers but I'm giving extra arguments as to why followers != notability. FinlayDaG33k (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This! --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 17:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same happened with Etika 2601:405:4881:B730:6DE2:3859:8CB1:41CE (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep / draftify - It is poorly written and sourced rather ineffectively, however, that can be fixed. The bigger issue is the lack of sufficient sources. I would say it is probably too early to delete this article. His death gave more coverage to him, however, I am skeptical that it is enough right now. I think WP:DRAFTIFY may be in due here, at least for the time being considering he did not die that long ago and more sources could cover him in the (unforeseeable) future. Not0nshoree (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/how-zoom-renders-private-classrooms-public-a-habermasian-consideration-432b24bc1fdb
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2KveJudVkM
  3. ^ https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/twomad
  • Delete Death doesn't establish notability, and the article follows suit with mundane content like "Sedik achieved growth and popularity online, accumulating millions of subscribers and views on multiple accounts on YouTube, as well as other social media platforms such as Twitter". Yeah, no. Only three sources: two of his death and the other his own YouTube channel. Being a shitposting idiot dying of an overdose doesn't automatically make him worthy of an article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 19:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Draftify, and a fairly passionate one at that. This article is not mainpage ready, not by a mile. But Sedik was a fairly big name on YouTube round about 2020-2021, which isn't terribly long, but the idea that he is only noteworthy because of his death is incorrect. IIRC we had the same discussion with Technoblade in 2022, a major Youtube name who didn't have an article in any form until his death. TwoMad certainly wasn't at the level of popularity that Technoblade was, but I think he still meets the bar of being notable independent of his death. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This discussion is getting out of hand from both sides of the spectrum. To get us back on track, I compiled a list of potentially usable sources posted here and on the article itself. You may disagree with my assessment of the sources, but let's at least talk more about the sources.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:PantheonRadiance
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Technology and Social Change - August 2020 Yes Created by researchers at Harvard University that have no affiliation with Twomad. Yes Looks peer reviewed to me Yes Discussed in several paragraphs about his ZOOM meeting content - at least one hundred words. Plus if a scholarly source analyzes your content in this manner, it is definitely a sign of notability, if only partial. ✔ Yes
The JoongAng - December 6, 2021 Yes Not affiliated with Twomad. Yes Appears as a reputable South Korean newspaper. Yes Main topic of article, discusses aspects of his content - in particular his relationship with the KPOP community ✔ Yes
HotNewHipHop - February 14, 2024 Yes Yes Per WP:A/S Yes Main topic of article, notes him as a controversial content creator and discusses aspects of his career prior to death rather than just the death itself. EDIT 2/21/24: Another source has been written about his career. ✔ Yes
NY Daily News - February 14, 2024 Yes Yes Per WP:RSPSS - arguably one of the few sources I'd trust reporting on him right now. Yes Not only does the source report on his death, but also touches a bit upon the allegations and his behavior prior. ✔ Yes
The Daily Dot/Passionfruit - July 26, 2023 Yes Reporter researched and analyzed claims independently of the creator. ~ Although considered fully reliable prior to late 2022, no consensus now emerges. At the very least, it should be considered reliable for internet culture. Yes Ignoring the BLP allegations, there's a lengthy section describing his career in multiple paragraphs. You can easily cite this as SIGCOV of his content without including those allegations. ~ Partial
The Indian Express - February 15, 2024 Yes Unaffiliated with Twomad; facts also look written/verified by editorial team Yes Per WP:INDIANEXP Yes Also writes about his content and life before passing. ✔ Yes
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}}.
Still not officially voting, but I will say one last thing. We can argue all we want about whether we feel this info about him is significant. But at the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that these outlets clearly found him significant enough to write about him. EDIT 2/16: Found extra The Indian Express source, adding to table. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PantheonRadiance's table. There are at least over 3 reliable sources here that are not (completely) related to his death, and thus makes him notable. Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources that PantheonRadiance has dug up could be used to write a yes, relatively short, but perfectly fine and verifiable article which meets WP:GNG. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 20:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, several RS are all that are needed for something like this to be notable, and there appear to be more than a few. Also, just from a purely 'duh' standpoint, this person was clearly more notable to the general public than +90% of sports figures who have their own pages; if random cricketeers from the 1910's can have Wikipedia pages, obviously social media influencers with multiple millions of followers can, too. Joe (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "several RS are all that are needed for something like this to be notable" - that's really s t r e t c h i n g the requirements & spirit of WP:N quite a bit. Just because someone has RS content about them doesn't necessarily qualify them as being notable. Neither does "being a YouTuber". I am mentioned in over a dozen RS, and I have 2 YT channels - and I sure as hell am not notable, nor do I warrant a page on WP outside of my talk & personal pages. If this is the criteria of notability that you have - then I presume you are also in midst of creating individual articles for each of the McDonald's and Little Caesar's franchisees out there? They have had more impact and influence than cricketeers and twomad put together. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 21:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are reliable secondary sources about some of McDonald's or Little Caesar's franchisees, I'd be all in favor of making an article about them. I'm not sure I'd agree that "They have had more impact" than twomad or any given random cricket player, or how one would measure that, or why one would think that a certain amount of 'impact' was a requirement for notability (in the Wikipedia sense of the word), but I'd still support it if shown the right RS. Heck, if there are RS about you in particular, you may be more notable than you think, my good editor! Perhaps we should have a page about you. I'd have to see the sources first, of course, before commenting one way or the other. Joe (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBIO. The RS report his death due to the circumstances of the event, without being able to previously demonstrate the notoriety and interest of his career as an internet content creator. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We can't have a serious discussion about lack of sources or detail in this article when it's unnecessarily extended-protected (looks like it wasn't even autoconfirm beforehand?) Doublah (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that only new editors to the project are going to be able to contribute anything worthwhile to the article in question? That's a pretty bold statement. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 15:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many non-new editors on Wikipedia who do not have over 500 edits, myself included. Page protection policy is such that protection is only to be used where proved neccesary, which is not the case here. Doublah (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can empathise that the discussion seems to trail into the territory of subjective assessment of the worth of this person rather than whether the sources substantiate notability. I think the problem is that in line with things like WP:NARTIST there is insufficient WP:SIGCOV about his actual contribution as a streamer to his medium to warrant an article. Assembling significant coverage about his death, views on certain topics and allegations about him puts the cart before the horse in assuming a personality is notable because people talk about them. In terms of what this person is apparently notable for, streaming, is there signficant coverage that evaluates and discusses that? There doesnt seem to be. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel as though his notability exists only in the current short term, perhaps either himself or his death may warrant a page in the future, but as of now he is only notable in the short term because of his sudden death, the majority of his appearances in news articles etc are only in relation to either his death, or his "zoombombing" in 2020. AlfonsoBourbonCream (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Based on the findings of other editors, there are some good sources that document his career as a streamer, even if said sources are primarily over his passing, mainly through PantheonRadiance. That's not to say that I'm personally happy with the current sourcing but there is a degree of significant coverage and Twomad is far from being not notable to warrant his own article. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a streamer or tuber does not make one notable. WP:BLP1E --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 15:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Picard's Facepalm: If he were a streamer with say, 0 significant mentions on any major secondary sources then I would agree considering that just about any other streamer could have an article with that logic. However, my main point is that some existing sources document his career well enough that go beyond just his death. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He wasn’t notable enough to have had an article before his death and dying is not itself noteworthy enough to warrant an article. The article itself is also low quality and poorly sourced. Archimedes157 (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Célestin Denis. Also, my two cents: we have articles about ministers and heads of political parties of pacific micronations whose total populations rarely exceed 50k people, which is equiualent of the population of the average village in my country, yet for some reason an influencer with millions of subscribers is not relevant enough for this encyclopedia? come on, boomers, give me a malarckey or however u say that Kasperquickly (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. The guy was also on mainstream news, so I'd say we should keep the article. Chelk (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To extrapolate that a streamer/tuber is as/more noteworthy than a governing entity (regardless the size) gives a pretty frightening reflection of the state of society, the direction it is heading & what is deemed as "important". You do know that there is an entire world outside of the 5 inch screen you hold in your hand, right? Oy. I will say that I am glad that your comment is documented here. Hopefully WP is still around in another 20 or 40 years - cause I want you to set a reminder in your google calendar to come back and re-read what you wrote there... and see what you think & say about it then. ThisAintABoomerThing --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 15:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that the same principle applies. A minister of a small country is still an important leader in that country, and what they say or do in that context is largely newsworthy no matter that the country is small. Having millions of subscribers doesn't carry any comparable weight or responsibility. FPTI (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about article X is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep PantheonRadiance's table shows clear notability here, I would be inclined to say delete but I think this table of references is enough to show at least minor notability. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be honest, there are even bigger YouTubers based on subscription/views that don't have pages, and to me this feels like there are arguments for both keeping and deleting it. I especially agree that, as an article, it's not really useful in its current stub state. A person's death (especially if it's not extraordinary in and of itself) should not make someone more notable. If it was legitimately rejected before, maybe it should be rejected again. For a case where a person's death made them more notable, I would point you to Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, which otherwise probably didn't meet the threshold for notability prior to her death (and was still being debated even immediately after her death). Ultimately, I'm not entrenched enough with this corner of YouTube to make an informed vote. I can see the case for both sides.Electricmaster (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to point out that there is a LOT more to the situation than just the fact he turned up dead one day. I think, once there's enough information on the ongoing criminal case against him and Twomad's criminal record, the article should be updated (with veritable sources) to reflect that. Twomad isn't notable just because of his death, I'd argue he's notable because of the huge amount of controversy he was mired in during his life. (See Jameskii's Twitter posts for a rough rundown of what I'm talking about here - Twomad was a prolific sexual predator and, in addition to falling into drug addiction, reportedly tried to have people killed for investigating his ongoing criminal activity.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGooseWithAPhone (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per PantheonRadiance's source table; I think that establishes a fairly clear notability. Generalissima (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Zoombombing: He appears to be notable only for (1) Zoombombing; (2) pulling controversial stunts; (3) being accused of sexual assault; and (4) dying of a drug overdose. Number 2 is mostly WP:MILL coverage, 3 does not meet the notability guideline for perpetrators, and 4 is an all-too-common tragedy that does not confer notability. Thus, the most appropriate alternative to deletion is to merge information about his Zoombombing to that article, giving it appropriate weight. I also agree with Beemer69 and Chris troutman. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on-board with this. Updating my position on this to delete/merge. Thanks for bringing this point & option up. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 16:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Per source analysis by PantheonRadiance. He has been mentioned in multiple sources independent of his death. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Zoombombing: As voorts noted above, a mention on the Zoombombing article is certainly in order. Beyond this, while I see some coverage from reliable sources, I do not feel that the coverage is sustained or significant enough to warrant a standalone article, as this individual only appears to have recieved sporadic coverage regarding involvement in Zoombombing, his death, and allegations of ilegal activity. The latter two are not enough to establish notability for a standalone article, and I believe the connection to Zoombombing is better explored in that article than in a biographical article. As Picard's Facepalm has mentioned above, the existence of coverage in reliable sources does not necessarily make an person notable enough to have their own article. In this case I think that this individual is not remarkable enough, nor has he received enough sustained and significant coverage for a standalone article. Ethmostigmus (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand Twomad is already notable enough outside of Zoombombing, and as PantheonRadiance has demonstrated, there is multiple quality sources that mention Twomad. As for the and Expand part, this is because the only section in this article outside of the introduction happens to be his death even though he was for sure notable during his lifetime, regardless of if it was good or bad notability. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 16:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Zoombombing. I don't see evidence of notability in the brief death notices or other ephemeral media documenting Twomad the human, as opposed to the brief social media phenomenon. Nangaf (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate keep - per GNG, given the amount of coverage, definitely meets notability now more than before (in which he arguably, already did, but now certainly does), and source coverage is about him. I don't see a reason to delete, and see reasons to keep. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the general consensus given to youtubers and streamers. Weak notability isn't enough, and I don't think the article will be expandable like some above are suggesting with current verifiable and reliable information. We are not a fandom. I'd personally say leave it 3-6 months and reconsider making this article, when the whole situation dies down. Also, not many of the sources add new information to this, so really theres like, one 'source' about his death, per WP:BASIC "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other". --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 (Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 11:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak) Merge with Zoombombing. I'm fail to see what else there is to expand, beyond the four points that voorts mentioned. If something big (besides those four things) is posthumously discovered then we can always create a new article. But, today, I'm not seeing it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per source table. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - per the listed source table. I feel he has enough notoriety to have an article, even if short. zodiahk (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per PantheonRadiance's table. IncompA 04:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Zoombombing per Voorts. Rusted AutoParts 04:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Expand, as per PantheonRadiance. Roasted 5:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per PantheonRadiance --Chicken4War (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to coverage in reliable sources that meets the notability guidelines. Sahaib (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – there is WP:SIGCOV here. Pantheon's source table shows this. There's a lot of tabloids/blogs covering the late twomad, sure, but there isn't is sufficient WP:RELIABLE sources simultaneously. Merging to Zoombombing is just out of context, this subject is, clearly, known for a lot more than zoombombing. TLAtlak 02:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now The article was just created so let’s see if there is more reliable sources.TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough reliable accredited sources to draw from. UlyssesYYZ (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is the last comment I'll post about this discussion and probably Twomad in general. First off, I found another source from HotNewHipHop that retrospectively covers his life in significant detail. Not only does it discuss his career separately from the Zoombombing meme (in fact it isn't even mentioned in the source), but it demonstrates, even if only partially, that his career was defined by more than just one trend. I updated the table once more; unless there's any doubt about its validity, I believe it's safe to assume it contributes to GNG. In light of that, I secondly think that a merge to Zoombombing is no longer necessary nor appropriate. Ignoring the arguments that his life is inherently too run-of-the-mill or trivial to deserve an article (which in my opinion read more like subjective "I don't like it" rhetoric that speaks more towards Wikipedia's bias against internet culture than anything else), this source among others proves that he has had some demonstrable influence that goes beyond just one event he pioneered. He may not have been as popular as other similar creators, but that's beside the point. From his meme-based content to his controversies, there's enough info one can reasonably extract from these sources which prove, if nothing else, that his life is worth remembering. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the table provided by PantheonRadiance above checks out. Password (talk)(contribs) 01:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am seeing coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events:
If this individual were alive today, I would think that they'd probably be below WP:GNG. But he's not, and the significant coverage of him and his death pushed him over the line from being on the margins to being a notable person. There is enough in the sourcing to write a brief and neutral encyclopedia biographical entry about him, and much of the coverage doesn't seem related to zoombombing, so I think that this article's subject is best covered in a standalone page rather than being merged to a topic on a particular social phenomenon that doesn't quite cover him fully (and seems to frankly be a minority of the coverage about him). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:05, 22 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Twomad&oldid=1209476094"