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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emiru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. _signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 13:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no doubt there is a lot of chatter about this individual online. Where I stumble on the way to WP:GNG is that all the "news-type" links don't seem to be reliable sources to me. I could be wrong... "Dexerto" is used as a reference in many articles on Wikipedia (see this search), but I think that's something that needs addressed on a bulk scale. The site just looks like a repeater of twitter and other self-generated PR and does not seem to have any journalistic or academic oversight. So that puts up stumbling blocks for WP:RS and WP:BLP.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retention - After reading your eligibility criteria, the article is obviously eligible. The notoriety is evident when you consider she works as a content creator for Cloud9, which is the world's second-most valuable esports organization. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neburner (talk • contribs) 20:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Which "eligibility critera" are you referencing? Also, "notoriety" is not the threshhold for notability. Having a job at a company does not qualify for an article because Wikipedia is not a directory.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Solid sources are utterly lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clearly meets WP:Notability and should be expanded with more reliable sources. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it meets WP:Notability and her rising fame means this article will have to be made sooner or later, but this should definitely be expanded with more reliable sources in the future. Weplist (talk) 2:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll bite: how specifically does the subject "clearly" meet notability? What sources? just saying it doesn't make it so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, my thinking was just based on her number of viewers -- if you have 9.4 million total views then I would assume some people are talking about you online in reliable secondary sources. But, reading your reasoning for delete, I can see that point of view as well. Don't these these 16 pages of news articles contain some reliable material? Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a fair quesiton, and I have to say my answer is "I don't know." I don't know if Dexerto or those other websites meet the standard of reliable sources or not. So I just pull back to WP:BLP and the policy that for living persons: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." I don't think we've met that standard. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep/Merge. Subject does get dedicated coverage in reliable sources such as Dot Esports [1] and SVG [2][3]. Coupled with briefer mentions of her work in those sources [4][5] and others such as Inven Global [6], Daily Utah Chronicle [7], Rift Herald [8]. Dexerto is a bit of a lower quality source in terms of content covered, but it does have editors, issues corrections, and largely directly links to the relevant primary sources (e.g. Twitch clips, tweets) it is covering. It's probably okay for uncontroversial topics, and it has a lot of coverage of Emiru as well. Coverage is not especially deep but it's borderline notable, and would certainly justify merging to the org she's a part of, Cloud9. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now, googling phrases like 'twitch emiru' vs 'twitch Asmongold' (no quotes on either searches) on the google news tab has 426 vs 7320 results. The most reported female streamer is possibly Amouranth, who strangely has no article while another female streamer, 'twitch lilypichu' results in 885 results but has a Wikipedia article. A key metric for notability is reporting by more mainstream media, such as Washington Post, NYT, etc. who mention specifically in their various reports much larger streamers. The most direct comparison in an approximate influence size manner can be made with Neekolul, but Neekolul had a viral moment which got into mainstream media while emiru has had no such thing Xenmorpha (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 User Iflaq moved misplaced comment downwards

• Move to draft. Patar knight makes a good point regarding the subject's dedicated coverage in reliable sources. Given her recent association with Mizkif and One True King, more sources will probably come out, but until then it should sit in the draftspace. Troutfarm27 ^(Talk) 05:04, 20 November 2021 (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.