Talk:IShowSpeed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

This page should be speedily deleted because this is a page on a non-notable YouTuber. --94.187.1.211 (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@94.187.1.211: The subject is notable enough and has sufficient coverage to not be speedy deleted. If you believe this article should be deleted, take it to AFD instead. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ishowspeed.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because CSD G4 doesn't apply here, this section clearly states: "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." I have heavily edited the article and added multiple reliable sources that weren't there when the discussion deletion was done. At the time IShowSpeed was voted for deletion he wasn't covered in those reliable sources as much but now that he is, I don't see why he doesn't merit an article of its own. For reference, here is the article at the time it was first nominated for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IShowSpeed&oldid=1076793157. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Célestin Denis (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Controversial subject

From what I've researched, most of the press that Watkins received is controversial, so I think WP:SNPOV is prohibiting this draft from being promoted to the main space. L337m4n (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@L337m4n: If you wish, see the discussion below. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Notability discussion

@SK2242, WaddlesJP13, Sparkl, Jurta, MaxnaCarta, and Akevsharma: I'm pinging the members of the original discussions for feedback. It's been nearly six months since the second AfD of IShowSpeed closed with a consensus of a delete and salt. Between that time, the subject has been embroiled with several other problematic events that made news coverage - all of which ranging from YouTube bans, to him getting doxxed and swatted, to even, for lack of a better phrase, "explosive" mishaps. Despite these new sources, the article has been declined three times in AfC between April and September - clearly demonstrating that just the mere existence of this article is already a controversy in and of itself.

Seeing as how editors are still interested in editing this draft, I felt the need to write this. I feel before anyone decides to accept or decline this article, we need to establish a community consensus once more. Seeing as how the mainspace version's already salted, we should really consider whether it's worth opening the gate for IShowSpeed to pass, and I think it's better to do this now rather than wasting more time creating another fruitless AfD later.

Discussion

First off, the sources in the draft come mainly from outlets already considered reliable - Kotaku, Dot Esports, NME, Inven Global, Insider, and even The Washington Post. From a purely quantitative standpoint, IShowSpeed technically does pass WP:GNG. He's been the subject of multiple news articles detailing the various antics he's gotten himself into. One other argument I saw for why his draft got rejected involved WP:BLP1E - a policy that shouldn't apply for two reasons. One, he's nowhere near a low-profile figure, and if anything he's literally the opposite. Not only is he extremely active on YouTube but he still gets millions of views from his fanbase of over 10 million subscribers. And two, it's clear that the Valorant and "last people on Earth" incidents only reach the tip of the iceberg when talking about his career. As aforementioned he's been involved in many more events that received coverage since the last AfD in April, and at the rate he's going now, he could very well keep getting more coverage in the future. I think it's obvious that he's far surpassed BLP1E and even BLP2E, making him eligible to pass the notability guidelines… on the surface. Taking a closer look however makes me wonder. Would this article really benefit readers outside of IShowSpeed's fans? Would people genuinely enjoy reading an article about a teenager who alluded to forcing a girl to reproduce with her, or went on a heated tirade in an online match, or a vast array of isolated events like these? Looking closely, much of his antics manage to blur the line between short-term controversy and long-term insignificance. On one hand, they generate talk for a while, but on the other, after those 15 minutes of Twitter trending, their impact seems a lot less enduring than expected. Maybe it's because of the Internet's propensity to inflate drama as bigger than it really is in the grand scheme of things. This, along with Speed's provocative nature, makes me foresee that this article could inevitably descend into a pseudo-list of all the controversial things IShowSpeed has done, managing to break several WP rules at once. I say this because most of the information surrounding IShowSpeed feels like some bizarre combination of what Wikipedia is not to the point where I'm conflicted on how it would stand. It would be like if you took a sprinkle of BLP violations, a dash of non-NPOV, two tablespoons of indiscriminate sauce, and a large helping of news, placed it in a blender and made a borderline unencyclopedic smoothie - one that not many would want to drink. This isn't to say that controversial topics, including YouTubers, aren't inherently notable enough for Wikipedia - Shane Dawson, Keemstar, the Paul brothers, and so on are just a small selection of notable divisive YouTubers. However, all of them at least were noted in sources for their own merits as creators separate from their incidents. Outside of Speed's controversies, what impact has he truly shown so far? Popularizing some game about a talking dog? Attending a soccer match only to foul KSI out within a minute? Yes, he's the fastest-growing streamer on the site right now, but popularity doesn't equal notability. I don't mean to sound as if I dislike him by any means - all I'm trying to do is weigh both perspectives of the argument. And judging from the side that doesn't believe he's notable, it seems as if Speed gained popularity solely because of his controversies, rather than being notable on his own merits who just so happens to run into awful situations every now and then. Yet, there's a strong possibility that he'll shed his "provocateur" identity and still get coverage for the content he creates - something part of me believes will come to pass.

TL;DR - I leave you with these questions: does anyone here believe that he deserves a Wikipedia page now? Or is it still too soon for him to have one? Personally if I were an AfC reviewer, I probably would accept this draft only if every editor here unanimously agrees that he passes the guidelines. But since I'm not, I'll leave it up for everyone else to decide.

Regardless of the discussion, I would like to thank Célestin Denis for revising this draft. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@PantheonRadiance I’ve taken only a cursory look. I agree with everyone you said. Second sentence is particularly poignant. However, only six months ago our community came to a consensus Wikipedia is better off deleting this topic. Its recreation so soon after needs a strongly compelling case to bring it back. I do not see a solid reason to override the wishes of the community. I also see no authority on which to reject or decline the article. So I’d just recuse myself. I find this article to be contrary to everything this project stands for - the notability largely stems from gossip and drama. That said, where my personal opinion is affecting judgement, I just omit to approve/decline an article. MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

IShowSpeed, although extremely controversial and mostly notable for shocking reasons is a subject who's documentation on the site would be of public interest. Granted, Wikipedia maintains a strict standard for individuals and popularity alone is not in itself reasoning for the creation of an article but considering there are reliable sources covering him, I do not see why he doesn't deserve one. Knowledge surrounding him supported adequately, no matter how inappropriate it is, should be made available. It is important to note that he's an individual who thrives off shock factor and over the top behaviour. Therefore, in this case, the coverage surrounding him being about drama and controversy only makes sense. The AfC consensus was mostly stemming around the validity of the sources, if the new ones are considered reliable and independent of the subject, the subject should pass WP:GNG. Célestin Denis (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta and Célestin Denis: Thank you for your input. My response was created partially to cognize the new reliable sources discussing Speed's content after the two AfDs. Combining those new sources with the sources from Kotaku, Insider, Dot Esports and Inven Global from 6+ months ago, I felt there was a much stronger case for his notability. After mulling it over, I thought that editors would still not accept the draft even with these sources because of other WP policies and guidelines (such as the ones I mentioned earlier). Looking back at my comments, maybe I was a bit too judgmental towards his notability. While yes, a large majority of news outlets typically discuss him whenever he has a "Speed moment," there are some sources that go into detail about him as a YouTuber and person in general. For example, here's this source from Dot Esports dedicated to discussing his popularity and impact on the platform, verifying that he was easily the fastest-growing streamer on YouTube.

Taking back what I said, I do see the value of him having an article; it was just that my discussion was me trying to understand the perspective of people who don't think he's notable even with these sources. When it comes to internet personalities, Wikipedia is notorious for their bias against allowing them to have their own articles. While many e-celebs often get sparse coverage from news outlets to the point where fans resort to crafting poorly sourced articles for them, even those that do get decent enough media coverage still get deleted and/or challenged. I'm not here to spark another discussion on the poor relationship the WP community has with most internet-related topics, but it's clear that IShowSpeed does fall under the latter. And honestly, Denis' edits to the article were not only constructive, but genuinely worthy of mainspace. It's clear he understood the importance of citing reliable sources. And it's not like this site is averse to controversial people or topics; otherwise a large portion of BLPs would be deleted.

I think for the next course of action, perhaps this discussion would be more suited for a deletion review per rule #3 with consensus to unsalt and accept Denis' version of the draft to mainspace. It's clear that nothing else would convince other editors that he has encyclopedic value unless we demonstrate the sources. Denis, if you want to create the deletion review, you may go ahead and do so, because otherwise this article will just linger in draftspace. PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I have listed it for a deletion review. Thank you for your support and help! Célestin Denis (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Contested salting and disruptive editing by Gameforall

Hello there,

I woke up this morning to see that all the work I had spent on improving the IShowSpeed draft has been ruined by a contributor, who without speaking to anyone, decided to remove some reliable sources in the article and replace them with grossly inappropriate sources that he found on the first page of Google. He then proceeded to copy and paste the draft's source code into Wikipedia's main space which I can only assume was his attempt at bypassing the ongoing AfC review or gaining complete credit for the article. Because of his actions, the title has been salted and the draft has been declined. Putting aside this contributor's actions, I would also like to mention that I think the use of the G4 criteria of speedy deletion was misused. I know it is not my expertise to comment on administrator decisions but the section specifically mentions that the criteria "(...) excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." The article was heavily improved within the 6 months since its last discussion deletion and its deletion should've instead been subject to yet another deletion discussion. Here is the article at the time of the previous discussion deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IShowSpeed&oldid=1076793157 Unfortunately, administrators weren't able to see the article's history because of Gameforall's copy and paste and instead made a completely rational decision from their point of view but an unfair decision based on the situation. Célestin Denis (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging the salting administrator in order to contest the decision @TomStar81. Célestin Denis (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand that the decisions surrounding its deletion and draft declining were mostly made around the inadequate sourcing but given that there are sources from the Washington Post, Insider, and Yahoo! News among other well-respected outlets, shouldn't the article have instead been ripped of its unreliable sources and not deleted? I do not see why IShowSpeed does not pass WP:GNG. Célestin Denis (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Given the nature of IShowSpeed and his fanbase along with the previous history of disruptive creation, I can see why administrators and contributors might be skeptical towards its creation but I believe it is completely rational from an objective point of view to at least consider that this subject might admissible by Wikipedia standards. Salting its title might restrict the subject's inclusion for years to come no matter the notability. An example of this happening would be Deji Olatunji whose salting prevented the article's creation for the past years even with him being covered extensively in The Daily Dot, BBC, The Independent, and other sources that are all considered reliable by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Deprecated Being too harsh towards articles and their inclusion can be detrimental towards general knowledge, given the importance of Wikipedia. Célestin Denis (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Salting was an outcome of the deletion discussion, and only some mysterious technical voodoo led to its unprotection. I agree with you that there was some fast-and-loose play with the speedy deletions, though it was a messy situation and I don't really mind. The path for this article to mainspace has to go through AfC. I think your decision to have a notability discussion here is a good one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I salted this for two reasons: 1) it was going to get deleted anyway so as to merge the history, since a copy/paste move messes that up. 2) In light of the constant recreation, and the honest effort to build the article in the AFC space, I felt it nessicary to lock down the title space until such time as the AFC process generated a version accepted by the community so we could have a chance to evaluate the article based on the collective work of the community in getting it to accepted status - which we won't get if the article keeps getting recreated in such ways. For that reason, and to preserve the integrity of the new version as well as the neutrality of the community in the matter, I felt SALTing for the time being was the best approach here so that when the new version is finally ready for publication it can be debuted free of any ongoing issues with the fanbase. Having the admin community involved in either the recreation or in rolling the article out by dropping the protection level when the time comes will go a long way to supporting a position that the new article is wikiworthy, and that may be the the tipping factor for inclusion in the inevitable 3rd AFD filing - which at this point I am sure is coming regardless of how well the article is built owing to the aforementioned fanbase and the failure of the "technical voodoo" (honestly, it should have been admin protected right from the getgo instead of ECP protected, and why it wasn't I am not sure.) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Source table

I only added the last source because it was one of the few that predated both AfDs. All of them address the subject in significant detail. Keep in mind that this is only a small selection of sources directly about IShowSpeed, and way more reliable sources exist for him.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:PantheonRadiance
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Kotaku - April 8, 2022	So independent that he didn't even respond to their request for comment.	Per WP:VG/RS	Lengthy article discussing his Valorant ban alongside background info on him/his content.*	✔ Yes
Dot Esports - August 1st, 2022	Unaffiliated with publication.	Per WP:VG/RS	Article asserting him as fastest-growing streamer on YouTube - credible claim of importance (Kotaku source also notes the same)	✔ Yes
Insider (culture) - July 25, 2022		Culture - reliable per WP:RSPSS	While it goes into specific detail about another incident he's been into, the article still asserts him as one of the fastest-growing YouTubers.	✔ Yes
Inven Global - December 13, 2021		Per WP:VG/RS.	One of the few sources existing prior to the two AfDs, significantly discusses an incident based on a joke he made and subsequent Twitch ban.	✔ 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}}.

*A multitude of sources from NME, Inven Global and Insider also wrote articles about the incident for further reading. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

PantheonRadiance, the first source, http://www.example_source1.com/doc1 is not the source. Can you please correct it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

#2 https://dotesports.com/streaming/news/ishowspeed-fastest-growing-streamer-on-youtube-right-now I guess is a GNG pass. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Source #3 is also a weak pass. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Source #4 also isn't a fail. Each one is quite weak weak, but not fails. I guess this topic passes the GNG. It might be still be deleted at AfD. Sources of published content centre on notorious events. I don't know whether I would !vote "delete" at AfD, but I certainly wouldn't be !voting "keep". Criticism that might carry the delete arguments is that the coverage is of trivial event and it is all a flash in the pan. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Moved from draft to article

Draft seems notable to become an article. Dojalove (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Move to main space is overdue.

This draft has been sitting here for a month post-salt despite being adequately improved and I think its move to main space is overdue. As I predicted, AfC reviewers are adamant to the idea of accepting the draft due to the turbulent past the article had, something User:PerfectSoundWhatever explicitly expressed when reviewing. Not only does IShowSpeed meet WP:GNG (see the previous source table) but he also recently met criteria number 2 of WP:SINGER with his song "World Cup" ending up on four different national charts. There is no policy preventing a move but still, admins have threatened to G4 the article again when User:Dojalove attempted a move and have enforced protection. There is no legitimate policy backing those actions and I must say that I am pretty disappointed. User:TomStar81 has expressed concerns over a potential 3rd AfD filling and cited his desire to create a version in the draft space that is endorsed by the community and administrators when salting the title. His fear of a 3rd AfD filling is perfectly legitimate but frankly, I don't see how someone could make a non-biased and policy-based rationale for the deletion of this version of the article. Wikipedia is also a work in progress and we shouldn't let an article sit in the drafts until it is perfect. IShowSpeed is currently at the center of several controversies and has a charting song that is likely to gain momentum with the upcoming World Cup. This article should be published as soon as possible because it is likely to be highly sought after in the upcoming days and weeks. I call for appropriate action by an Administration or a new page reviewer as soon as possible. Célestin Denis (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I would just like to put into perspective how harmful delaying the publication of the IShowSpeed article has been by citing Sky Sports' complete obliviousness towards the streamer's controversial nature. They were only able to find out about his sexist rants when users shared clips of the streamer. Would this article have been live and accessible, Sky Sports could've easily known, without having to dig deeper, the controversies surrounding him. The average person will not bother reading articles and digging up information of their own which falsifies the general discourse around certain internet figures such as IShowSpeed. Wikipedia serves as an important medium. Célestin Denis (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Your Sky Sports point is irrelevant, but I took a look at the draft. Once the better source needed maintenance tag is handled and the discography fully sourced, I'm willing to accept the draft. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 08:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Lifehacker has no consensus for unreliability, (see 1, 2, 3), so I removed the better source needed tag. Someone listed it as unreliable on WP:NPPSG, (which is why all the scripts say it is) but the consensus was very insubstantial, and further discussions were held. I brought it up on the Wikipedia Discord a while back, which is why I think its now listed under "no consensus" on NPPSG. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@DatGuy With PerfectSoundWhatever's comment, the better source needed tag issue seems to have been resolved. I have removed all songs which I was unable to source in the discography section. Célestin Denis (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a bit. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 13:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2022

Darren Jason Watkins Jr. 112.118.41.240 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Remove the Jenny Section

Can you please remove it and its "too" Intense for a Wikipedia Article ThoseWhoWishMe12 (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@ThoseWhoWishMe12: No. A streamer catching a one week ban from YouTube is undoubtedly relevant to his career. WP:NOTCENSORED. – ².O.^Boxing 20:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

but adding this section made my spine cold ThoseWhoWishMe12 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@ThoseWhoWishMe12: It's not about what you don't like, it's about what is noteworthy mentioning. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Ishowspeed’s age

Ishowspeed mentioned he was 19 years old in a stream recently. That means that his age on Wikipedia is accurate and the birthdate should be sometime in 2003. 2A02:C7E:1183:2300:B86B:7609:5FC1:793A (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

IShowSpeed is known to not be truthful about his age. Him being 19 is a running gag that's been around for the past year, he even claimed to have turned 20 on his birthday: https://twitter.com/ishowspeedsui/status/1484392907847122947

Reliable sources are saying he is 17. Célestin Denis (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Are swear words allowed?

That "ishowspeed" Voice thing has some swearing, is this even allowed to wikipedia? MissingWikia (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@MissingWikia: Strong language is allowed on Wikipedia, see WP:NOTCENSORED. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@MissingWikia: if such things offend you then I recommend you find something more age appropriate. This is unacceptable. Do not do it again. – ².O.^Boxing 20:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2023

eu sou da sua nação, nigeria logo tenho de corrigir erros na sua biografiaJoninho gamer (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC).

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2023

Change him to Watkins, as he was the one who threw the Messi jersey on the ground. source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt5deAEfjB4 Faze amogus (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023

Obsolete language is used in the first paragraph, when the word oftentimes is used. Memer15151 (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Potential edit

This post is semi protected as such i can't edit it so , on the first line of controversies main text there is a clear to see error 2001:BB6:9F01:DB90:7CC5:C372:4981:B79B (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@2001:BB6:9F01:DB90:7CC5:C372:4981:B79B Were you referring to "partook part"? If so, I have just fixed that. Thanks for bringing it to attention. Strugglehouse (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2023

24.77.208.158 (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Speed has 18M subs now

 Done. Updated views as well. Xan747 (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

[[

File:IShowSpeed Aka Darren Watkins Jr With Portuguese Star Cristiano RONALDO.jpg

IShowSpeed Aka Darren Watkins Jr With Portuguese Star Cristiano RONALDO

|thumb]]

My Request Is To Change The Old Picture Of Darren Watkins Jr With The Latest Picture When He Met Cristiano RONALDO 154.80.84.117 (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The licencing / copyright of that image is in question. Make the request again after that is sorted out. RudolfRed (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Cluster headache

someone should add a personal life section talking about the current cluster headache he is going through 86.5.202.27 (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

he has 19millions subs currently

Youtube subscription 41.75.171.151 (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done: I've also updated the total views. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 08:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

we should add a new controversy

about the time he flashed his genitals on stream 2600:1700:FF80:DCA0:EDD5:DF68:AC15:81A2 (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

read the discussion above this. also WP:TOOSOON. B3251 (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible upcoming vandalism

Just to notify any fellow Wikipedia users, this article and the corresponding talk page may face vandalism in the upcoming hours/days. If anybody could, please keep an eye out and favorite this page to watch for any possible vandalism attempts. B3251 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

>randomly check Watchlist and see this post

>check Google News

>mfw reading first headline that pops up: (0)_(0)

...yeah. I get that sources like Complex already picked it up, but... can we just immediately invoke WP:NOTNEWS and prevent even so much as a single word about this ever appearing in this article? Unlike his other incidents (ban from Twitch, Valorant rant), I honestly doubt that this is an incident that'll pass the WP:10YT unless he actually receives any sort of repercussions. EDIT: Also, it looks like the page already received protection since July, and won't expire until next year. Hopefully that's long enough for people to forget it even happened in the first place. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hasn’t he been banned from YouTube or Twitch or something for it? שונרא (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

No, he's not receiving a ban from this incident. B3251 (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not too soon

WP:TOOSOON is if sources do not exist. There are many sources about this.

The Sun, Dexerto, The Economic Times, Daily Mail, TMZ, Yahoo News, WION, Marca, just to name a few of the hundreds. This is not vandalism, it is an objective fact that it happened and there are existing videos. This is censorship of an incident by fans of the person the article is about, which is not what Wikipedia is supposed to stand for.

How is "In July 2022, Watkins set off a Pikachu firework inside of his bedroom, almost burning it down."

or "Also in August 2022, he attempted to cheat in a "United States and Global Economics" course he was taking at the Ohio Digital Learning School by asking his viewers for the answers to his quiz. His viewers instead took the opportunity to prank him and purposely give him the wrong answers, resulting in him getting 0/10 on the test"

deserving of being on the page but not something that has been trending with hundreds of articles about it? what is your real reasoning? Vaintara (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Vaintara:

1: None of the articles you cited are reliable for WP:BLPs per various discussions, such as WP:RSPSS and WP:VG/RS. Some of the sources you listed are even deprecated due to their repeated misinformation, poor fact-checking and editorial process, and spreading of claims that violate our BLP policies. I suggest you familiarize yourself with what a reliable source constitutes.

2: The difference is, unlike other controversies he has gotten into (even the firework incident), virtually nothing about this incident have either A) been covered by actual reliable sources (besides perhaps Complex), and B) demonstrated to have a lasting impact.

3: Not everything about IShowSpeed should be included immediately in an article. You also have to take into consideration whether this incident will have any demonstrable impact beyond the two days it initially gets coverage. This website is not a newspaper nor do we rush to write about events that happen so soon. Although we can ignore all rules in certain instances, if we didn't have these standards in the first place, Wikipedia would be no better than the gossip sites reporting on this. If this incident actually leads to some meaningful consequences (such as a permaban), AND received more coverage from reliable sources, then maybe this info could be added. Otherwise, please wait a week or two if any update occurs. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia adds new things all the time, including to this page. Which sources aren't the point, there's many to choose from. You don't need specific sources to have evidence that it happened, we're going to pretend it didn't just because of which sources covered it?

How does "the firework incident" have "a lasting impact"? And why was it allowed to be added to his page almost instantly then? It didn't lead to "meaningful consequences" which is what you're asking for here. This is something that will be mentioned for years far more than "the firework incident". Vaintara (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Ishowmeat

Where is the Ishowmeat incedent. Recently Watkins flashed is penis when he saw Chica from FNAF, infront of millions of viewers. 73.111.120.83 (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The incident is yet not added, probably due to the page being protected to avoid vandalism. 37.60.133.150 (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll get working on it right now. IncompA 21:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

please read the above discussions and the previous revisions. thank you. B3251 (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@IncompA and B3251: I think at the rate this article is going, we may need to start an RfC on this topic being included, because it's clear that so many of IShowSpeed's fans and even some Wiki editors will never let up on this issue. I'm generally lenient towards including info so long as it's been covered by reliable sources, but so far Complex and Dot Esports are the only sources I've found reliable enough that wrote about it. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Ooh, that's unfortunate, I've already added the incident to the article. IncompA 21:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@PantheonRadiance Yeah, if that's the case and we do keep it added, I'm not sure if we might as well reinstate what was previously written (it's written better than the current addition) or just go by the most reliable sources. B3251 (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@IncompA: Again, these sources are either questionable or unreliable for BLPs. If you wanted to include this info, you should've at least added the Complex and Dot Esports ones (or any confirmed reliable source from WP:RSPSS). I'm not going to remove it for now, but its relevance to the article is still in question. Keep in mind that even events involving celebrities covered by reliable sources still can easily be removed per WP:NOTNEWS, so if someone else removes the info, don't be surprised. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I've found another reliable source reporting on the incident here. Yahoo! News falls under "generally reliable" on WP:RSP. Thoughts? IncompA 01:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, shit, I forgot Yahoo! News aggregates news sources. Turns out the original article comes from National World, which after doing some basic research, seems to be okay. Not 100% sure, though. IncompA 01:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it, again, per NOTNEWS. If people want it included then they can come here and gain consensus. – ².O.^Boxing 00:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Squared.Circle.Boxing: Well, it appears we've reached another brick in the wall. Despite the silliness of doing this for what amounts to... for lack of a better phrase a "sausage slip", I think an RfC is becoming more of a viable option. If people continue to dispute over it, I'll do one tomorrow.

Also IncompA, I forgot about the Yahoo source, but I'm unsure if National World is reliable. I'm admittedly not the best at determining source reliability, so if you want, maybe you could ask at the noticeboard? PantheonRadiance (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. After a search, they have never been on the noticeboard before. IncompA 03:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

First, I agree the sourcing is currently too weak and that this incident is unlikely to pass the WP:10YEARTEST. That said, I don't think an RfC is the right vehicle for assessing consensus here. They usually run for about 30 days. If we just wait for thirty days, we'll likely get a good sense for whether better sources will cover this or if everyone will move on to the next viral controversy. In the meantime, maybe we can seek out input from people with experience in BLP or DUE issues at either WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The BLP noticeboard does sound more promising - seems we could gage consensus faster with less effort. Also, I did note that Complex and Dot Esports are considered reliable (and replaced the sources with them before the event got removed again), but I could definitely see how they may be weak in this instance. PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, leaving this up a bit longer in case anyone else wants to chime in. My goal is to post a neutral request for more input. Something like

Internet personality IShowSpeed is embroiled in a nudity-related controversy. There's an ongoing discussion about whether a mention of this controversy is warranted. Proponents of inclusion have brought some reliable sources. Opponents have cited BLP, NOTNEWS, and DUE concerns. More input would be appreciated.

Any tweaks? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that's good, but I'd add recentism concerns as well, along with the explaining the reliable sources in question (ex. "...have brought some reliable sources, such as Complex and Dot Esports") so we can also discuss whether they're acceptable for BLP-related controversies. PantheonRadiance (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Good ideas. I posted at WP:BLPN#IShowSpeed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there any decision as of now, since people already added it again? B3251 (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2023

change 19.7 million subscribers to 20 million. SatsuiSuri (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Also he didn't die... 65.200.161.226 (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Pinchme123 (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Undefined ref

@TomMasterReal: please fill in the ref for the streamy awards. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 19:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I made that edit when the Streamy's had just ended, so thats why the ref wasn't added. TomMasterReal^TALK 23:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

His Name

https://youtube.com/shorts/gHAQUhmWag0?si=spF-xj1wihClB9Mq 2603:7081:3C:E0DD:1414:CF0C:577E:7F69 (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2024

Out of date 2601:281:D381:6880:1CB6:593A:1967:11EA (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)