This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 22 November 2024 by reviewer Grahaml35 (talk · contribs). YouTube This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject YouTube To-do: A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : see list. Assess : Apply the assessment scale on Unknown-importance YouTube articles + Unassessed YouTube articles Cleanup : See cleanup listing Maintain : This WikiProject Stubs : Category:Stub-Class YouTube articles Other : Substitute {{WikiProject YouTube/Invite Members}} on user talk pages Check out edit requests on Talk:List of YouTubers Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

• ... that YouTuber Tyler Oliveira apologized after trying to drain a pool with paper towels?

• Reviewed:

Based5290 :3 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoter comment: Epicgenius I think you missed or check the references, on the article, the ref 1 cited a YouTube which is discouraged per WP:RSYT as well as ref 2. Second, on ref 4 cited a Twitter post which is failed on WP:TWITTER. And othe ref was cited YouTube video which is failed on RSYT too, but, in other ref is okay like CNN etc. It should be rejected on this. I'm doubted to promote this. Royiswariii Talk! 04:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing up your concern, Royiswariii. I did indeed check these references, but I saw them as WP:ABOUTSELF references published by the subject himself, and thus acceptable. I really don't think this is worth taking any action on, let alone rejecting the entire nomination, but perhaps we can ask for a third opinion at WT:DYK if you disagree. Epicgenius (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing I don't think that inclusion of information about charges against Dahlgren violates WP:BLPCRIME, as I would argue that Dahlgren should be considered a public figure:

• Dahlgren maintains a channel on Youtube and a Twitter account with around fifty thousand followers. While this is not evidence of notability, it's clear that Dahlgren is seeking some form of public attention.
• Dalhgren has appeared on Fox several times. Again, not evidence of notability, but he clearly has put himself in the public spotlight on his volition.
• The charges against Dahlgren were picked up by local Oregon outlets and NBC News.

I do very much appreciate that you brought this up, though. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dahlgren self-publishes content, but that does not make him a public figure.
• Dahlgren has been interviewed several times, but that does not make him a public figure.
• The charges against him were picked up by local/regional news, plus one (that we know of; so far) national news article, but that does not make him a public figure.

Per the BLP policy, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources". What we have here appears to be "a handful" rather than "a multitude". I think that he might fall in the category of "People who are relatively unknown". I could understand someone saying that Dahlren is perhaps "medium-profile" rather than "low-profile".

Also of importance is: Why in this article? None of the sources you link mention Tyler Oliveira. If Dahlgren is a public figure with "a multiple of reliable published sources", then you could start an article on Dahlgren and possibly justify sticking the accusations in there (assuming you can get a consensus that Dahlgren is a public figure), but until there is a source that connects the accusations against Dahlgren with Oliveira's video, there is no reason to mention them in this article. We should not use this article like a WP:COATRACK that we can "hang" Dahlgren's accusations on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CTV News does mention Dahlgren's charge in the context of Oliveira's video, so I don't think it necessarily falls under WP:COATRACK because a reliable source has thought it important to mention Dahlgren in relation to Oliveira.

I could keep dumping sources about Dahlgren to prove that it does count as "a multitude" (and I will). However, I've based my definition of "public figure" off the WP:Who is a low-profile individual essay, and Dahlgren is interviewed on Fox as himself, not a spokesperson for some organization. This may be more a conflict over whether the essay is actually about "public figures" as mentioned in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The arrest appears to have nothing to do with either Oliveira or Oliveira's work. That's what makes it a "coatrack" problem. You've found one source that mentions Oliveira and the arrest on the same page, but it does not claim that Dahlgren's legal problems have anything at all to do with Oliveira. This is not much different from having an article on "Joe Film" that mentions him working with "Chris Celebrity", and then saying in Joe's article that Chris got arrested. Joe's article would be the place to report information about Joe getting arrested, not about Chris getting arrested.

If you think there are a multitude of sources about Dahlgren, then start an article on Kevin Dahlgren (YouTuber) and stick the allegations in there. Dahlgren's arrest has nothing to do with Oliveira. Putting it in here violates our WP:COATRACK rules and it acts as a guilt by association fallacy to smear Oliveira. Unless and until we have a source that says Oliveira had something to do with Dahlgren's arrest, then the arrest does not belong in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, read through WP:COATRACK a little more carefully this time, and I do now agree that the mention of Dahlgren's arrest does fall under that and does not belong in this article. However, I don't the analogy you put forward is quite comparable: this situation would be more akin to "Joe Film worked with Chris Celebrity after Celebrity was arrested", assuming that this statement had numerous reliable sources explicitly making the connection (see for example Emily Armstrong, where a paragraph is dedicated to her behavior related to Danny Masterson). Again, probably doesn't apply in Oliveira's case, but it's important to point out for future reference. Based5290 :3 (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]