Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hasan Piker

Hasan Piker[edit]

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Hasan Piker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as nominator As of now, the subject of this article does not meet notability requirements established by WP:GNG. He is also not inherently notable for his comments about Dan Crenshaw, which yielded some media attention outside of his YouTube bubble per WP:BLP1E. If others are opposed to an outright delete, I would support a redirect to The Young Turks. KidAd (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hasan Piker is very notable in American media circles and one of the prinicipal presenters in The Young Turks. We have extensive coverage of the presenters of this site. Refer to the template: Template of TYT Network werldwayd (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC). werldwayd (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are untrue. He's not a principal on TYT and never has been; he is almost never on the main show... he does Facebook videos. (FB views are notoriously unreliable because they autoplay and views count almost immediately even if you scroll past or turn them off.) It's not even clear that he even works for them anymore; the last video posted here was on Dec. 12: [1] It looks like TYT has ended this "Breakdown" experiment, because Francis Maxwell also appears to be gone. And he is certainly not and has never been "very notable in American media circles". He makes FB videos FFS; he's not Don Lemon. That other TYT presenters have pages is a nonsense argument. They earned their pages based on their own notability, not simply because they work for TYT. In any case, I say don't delete; redirect to The Young Turks Bueller 007 (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Going through the sources in the article, the Cosmo piece is qualifying coverage - is there any other qualifying coverage? It can be hard to find for streamers. SportingFlyer T·C 12:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the RS noticeboard, There is no consensus on the reliability of Cosmopolitan. KidAd (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Then we need two qualifying sources in order to keep this (closer please read this as a delete at least for now.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. The only notable part is the controversy section. Bring him back if he says three or four more things that make national news. If he disappears into obscurity in a couple of years — which is probably more likely — he ultimately wasn't notable. -- Dorama285 18:18, 05 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. His Youtube-channel, from which he earns the most notability/gained the most controversy, only has 64.6K subscribers. According to WP:NYOUTUBE, only 9% of the Youtubers with >100K subscribers survive an AfD. The number of subscribers *does* have bearing on notability according to the second point of WP:ENT. Thus, I do not mind recreation of the article if mr. Piker's channel passes the 100,000-mark. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - close but I agree one controversy doesn’t meet notability guidelines. Lorelai1335 (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Lorelai1335[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.