Talk:Jaiden Animations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... This article has enough coverage in sources to be notable. The article isn't in perfect condition right now but with a few days of work I could greatly improve the article. There are YouTubers who are less notable than Jaiden but have a Wikipedia page. And most other YouTuber's Wikipedia pages aren't in much better condition or even worse. What I'm saying is that we have enough coverage of information by sources and I can continue to improve the article. Bowling is life (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bowling is life: So right now, I don't really enough about the subject's present status wrt WP:GNG to make a judgment about that, but just wanted to caution you about WP:BLPPRIVACY. In particular, unless it's already widely publicized elsewhere, usually it's best to err on the side of caution regarding full names and birthdays. This is a problem that has cropped up in previous AfDs for this subject, so just wanted to make sure that you were aware. Ahiijny (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

How can we combine the edit history I have over at the draft I worked on quite a few months ago with this draft? Soulbust (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

My say on this draft

I do not have high hopes for this draft at all. There is (IMO) a 99% chance that this will not be accepted into the main namespace and it could end up being deleted. I wouldn't waste my time on a draft with that high of a risk personally. If anyone else wants to work on this draft, they can go right ahead, but I wouldn't as I think it probably is not something that would end up as an article on something like Wikipedia. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 12:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC) / Quahog (talk) (contributions) 06:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The only reason I'm not nominating the draft for deletion is because I can't decide whether to take it to DRV or MfD. FWIW my concerns are privacy and the use of the Metro British tabloid. wumbolo ^^^ 11:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Partial Fixes

Hello, everyone who worked on the article and edited it. So after glancing at the submitted draft, I decided to add in a few last-minute changes to Jaiden’s page before an AfC reviewer formally reads it. Most of my changes are solely on the /* Career */ section.

First off, I fixed a couple typos I already found just through skimming through the page, including “Jainde’s”, “vidoe” and “Los Angelens.” If this article appeared on the mainspace, it certainly would raise a few eyebrows.

Second, I fixed aspects of the information in her career, mainly pertaining to her appearance on YouTube Rewind 2018. Specifically I clarified the statement that her portion of the video received praise from critics despite the Rewind video receiving negative reviews overall. I also removed the information of the Rewind receiving over 10 million dislikes, as while the fact was definitely substantiated, it had little relevance to Jaiden's appearance on the video. Also, the claim that "the video itself was heavily panned by critics, YouTubers, and viewers alike, who subsequently dubbed it the worst video of the series to date" already got that point across clearly.

Finally, I’m a little concerned with this source in particular. While Perennial Sources states that Daily Star (UK) was deprecated, I’m not sure if this source of the same name has any relation besides the coincidental name. If this source is reliable and unrelated to the deprecated source, then I’m okay with it.

Anyway, have a good day, and I hope this draft gets accepted, especially for the editors' sake and the sake of every user who declined this article multiple times. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @PantheonRadiance:. Thank you for help. Firstly, sorry for the typos. It was quite late when I wrote that. About the newspaper, have checked it and it is The Daily Star (Bangladesh), which is not connected to the Daily Star (United Kingdom). Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Artemis Andromeda: No problem, if that's true then it definitely works as a source for establishing her notability, seeing how the article focuses entirely on her. I also left a comment on the draft saying that she should fulfill the notability guidelines for web-content and entertainers. Let's hope the reviewer will accept it :) PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability

So what makes her notable now since the February 2021 rejection? Can you list the three best GNG sources? WP:GNG WP:THREE AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging PantheonRadiance, Artemis Andromeda, Firefly, Aranya, JalenFolf, Hoary, Tagishsimon, ImprovedWikiImprovment, Onel5969, Bowling is life AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

copied from AFC comments:

For anyone who reads this draft once more, she should definitely qualify for a Wikipedia article. As someone who had no involvement with the draft (until today when fixing parts of the article), Jaiden fulfills the general notability guidelines in the category of WP:WEB; in addition to her animated videos being discussed by multiple non-trivial works, she also has won a Streamy Award in 2020, and the award in particular has its own Wikipedia page. At the very least, she fulfills both criteria for Notability (web), and while popularity itself isn't a factor for notability, she does also have a large fan base of 10 million subscribers, satisfying criteria #2 in WP:ENT. These two standards definitely warrant her having this draft being accepted as a fully-fledged article. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

There are a bunch of random news sources that just give her a short paragraph describing her YouTuber career, but among those, can you find the ones that give significant coverage on her career? There are also a bunch of passing mentions refs that should be removed. We know she collabs with other YouTubers. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey @AngusWOOF, sorry for replying to this message so late, I had copious amounts of homework that I had to complete this past week. So here’s my response; not only will this include the sources but it will also include what caused me to write that comment in the first place. If you want, just skip to #3.

1: First off, I want to address a tiny little mistake I made earlier. I thought that the Daily Star article was the one which significantly mentioned her. Perhaps a Mandala effect happened or my mind was occupied with the Breath of the Wild 2 trailer. I don't know exactly but I apologize for that.

2: Second off, my rationale for deeming Jaiden as a notable figure came from the “Basic Criteria” section of Notability (people), specifically guideline #2: “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.” While the article has had issues with continuously relying on trivial mentions, several of them genuinely related to her YouTube career in a way that omitting said information would make her history incomplete. This applies especially to her contributions to the 2018 YouTube Rewind video. On the surface, Jaiden merely being featured on the Rewind wasn’t inherently notable in the slightest - but it was her segment in which she included a reference to PewDiePie, the biggest YouTube channel at the time (and especially during the PewDiePie vs. T-Series feud) which brought her that recognition. Her segment was already noted multiple times as one of the few great moments in that otherwise critically panned video. And while the sources mentioning that segment were admittedly quite brief (because her portion of the video in general was quite brief), they can still be combined and written in a way where no original research would be needed to explain her contribution to the Rewind video.

Also, as aforementioned, Jaiden fulfills the criteria for Notability (web). For criteria #1, she had been nominated for the Streamy Award for Animation in 2018 and won the same award two years later. Deadline Hollywood, The Hollywood Reporter and Billboard have each reported this. And while she only received a brief mention from each of them, she still won the award regardless so it should still fulfill #2 on the criteria. As for #1 for the web criteria, see the last section.

3: Finally, here are the WP:THREE sources which significantly cover aspects of her career. These should be sufficient enough to write an article about her; anyone who reads these articles should easily get a glimpse into who she is, the content she does and why she’s notable.

Sources:

A: https://www.animationmagazine.net/internet/positive-influence-youtuber-jaiden-animations-gives-back/

This source from Animation Magazine addresses her solely and in decent enough detail, talking about her affiliation with Channel Frederator and her involvement with the #Hopefromhome fundraising event.

B: https://www.arabnews.com/node/1688961/saudi-arabia

This source coming from Arab News isn’t exactly of War and Peace length, but it’s at least not just one sentence or a name-drop - it goes into decent enough detail and definitely works as a source alongside the first article. According to Perennial Sources, Arab News is “a usable source for topics unrelated to the Saudi Arabian government,” which she’s obviously not, so using this source shouldn’t be an issue at all.

And finally, I was hoping I wouldn’t have to resort to using this source, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

C: https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/72303/URN%3aNBN%3afi%3ajyu-202010236356.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

This source was one I came across out of sheer curiosity, when searching on Google Scholar during my pursuit of reliable sources. It’s a substantial scholarly article which goes into great detail on Jaiden’s YouTube content, comparing her videos to fellow animator TheOdd1sOut along with explaining the personal anecdotes she shares in her animation-vlog hybrid videos. Pages 7-12 are where the bulk of the information is located.

So there you have it. These sources should reasonably contribute to her notability and justify her being worthy of a Wikipedia article. Her contributions to YouTube culture through the 2018 Rewind, her Streamy Award win and her content being discussed in multiple sources should allow her to qualify under WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and WP:WEB. I hope these sources would be enough to let her draft finally be accepted.

Also just in case an admin salts this draft:

#I G N O R E A L L R U L E S !!!!!

PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Regarding the three sources:

1) Animation Magazine has significant coverage but it's not clear whether the reporter actually did any interviewing or just watched her videos and then the bottom two paragraphs about Frederator look like press release material.

2) Arab News. looks OK. Ameera Abid seems to be a regular reporter for that news site.

3) that pdf file - this is some student's Bachelor's thesis, so this isn't notable as a reliable source. This is like if one of us decided to write about Jaiden in our term paper. Not the same as publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal.

So still a maybe for me. I was hoping for more of the first one but with actual reporter-like interviews, as with Parker Coppins [1] or Meghan Camarena (lots of media coverage including her career growing up) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, I agree with your assessment of the sourcing, for the most part, although the Arab News piece is a bit brief. On the whole, still not seeing anything that I would say passes the WP:GNG threshhold. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreeing with Onel5969. Not much news coverage has been published since Firefly assessed the subject this past February - this recent article seems to be relevant, but only briefly mentions one of her popular videos. Since deletion of this draft has been brought up: the subject won her first Streamy Award just this past December and is still very popular on YouTube. I don't think there's any harm keeping a viable draft until more sources come out. Aranya (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this article is ready. It has been greatly improved and is well sourced. As @PantheonRadiance: mentioned, Jaiden fulfills the general notability guidelines in the category of WP:WEB, she won a Streamy Award in 2020, and meets criteria #2 in WP:ENT. The article also has plenty of information and sources that proves her notability. Bowling is life (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bowling is life: Okay, let's just calm down here for a second. I should have replied to AngusWOOF about this a little while ago before you guys talked to him about it, but seeing as how it's a bit too late, I'm just going to post my reply right now to avoid any more confusion.

First off, Animation Magazine is already considered a reliable source according to WikiProject Animation, and Jaiden herself isn't affiliated with them in any way so it should count as independent. The article didn't mention her or Channel Frederator in a promotional manner - it talked about the both her and the network in the same way other reliable outlets have written articles about multi-channel networks like Maker Studios and content creators partnered with them.

Second off, I will admit that the third source was a bit of a mistake on my part; I assumed that the article was akin to a regular thesis or dissertation according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP and would be fine to use as a reliable source. Upon closer examination, it seems as if this paper contains mostly original research; some of the references come from both Jaiden and TheOdd1's videos themselves, and one reference used Wikitubia which is a definite no-no. At the very least, there were several other results on Google Scholar that I didn't look at entirely, so if I could find a suitable one to use that counts as a good secondary source, maybe that will give her notability.

Also to onel5969, while that article may be a bit too brief, it's at least over 100 words of continuous prose. Since WP:GNG doesn't exactly explain what counts as a trivial mention (besides obviously a name-drop/short sentence), I derived my definition of it from WP:100W. I would have liked it to be a bit longer however.

And finally, my last comment where I posted #IGNOREALLRULES was actually meant to be facetious. I saw that Jaiden’s page had been repeatedly rejected over the course of this past year and assumed that it was on the verge of getting SALTed, if it hasn’t already been before. Right around the time I worked on this response I came across the WP:IAR page from an Articles for Deletion discussion about a different subject, and thought it would be fitting to mention for this article. I obviously do not believe in ignoring all rules (especially for a site as strict as this), but I do feel that adding Jaiden to Wikipedia would definitely improve the website's coverage on YouTube personalities - not as a way to promote her channel but to give context about the history of animation channels on YouTube. I think for now however, this draft should still stay in draftspace until we find at least one more significant and reliable source that covers her career. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

PantheonRadiance, it looks like the create-protect has been removed and the article moved to mainspace, so we'll see how it goes there. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

LGBT Categories

Three categories related to LGBT were added by Artemis Andromeda, Cmxci, and who I'm assuming is the latter user prior to making an account. Apparently, lgbt people consider asexual and aromantic as one of them, which I don't think is correct, as a lack of a sexual preference is not a sexual deviancy, it's just exactly what it sounds like. Furthermore, checking every article under asexual women and aroma tic women show none of them have lgbt categories, and while I'm aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, again the lack of a sexual preference is also the lack of a sexual deviancy. Cmxci mentioned that the categories include all variants of the term, but it's still too misleading under their current names, and unless these categories get renamed to lgbtqia+, they shouldn't be here in my opinion. The A can also stand for agender, which is a completely different thing from asexual and aromantic, making the categories misleading even if they do get renamed. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. As defined. Asexuality and Aromanticality are both registered on the LGBTQ+ Spectrum. The spectrum contains all possible sexualities. There are differences in Asexuality and not having a sexual preference. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As defined in SEVERAL other places, LGBTQIA+ is Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer Intersex and ASEXUAL. Asexuality is defined by potentially having a romantic interest, but not a sexual interest, and aromaticality is defined by "potentially having a sexual interest, but not a romantic interest". Having both means no attraction unless otherwise specified. As per the wikipedia category itself, This needs to be updated to allow for this. @Unnamed anon PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The category names or the articles? Because the category names are currently too misleading, and I wouldn't be too opposed to including them if the names were changed to lgbtqia+ instead of indirectly mentioning it in prose in the category descriptions. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Too long category names can cause confusion, but that doesnt mean certain things are unrelated to the category. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The shortened name is already causing confusion, and I don't think making the acronym in the category names more encompassing would be confusing. Either the categories should go because they're misleading, or we somehow try to get the names changed to be more encompassing to remove the confusion. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

LGBT Itself is an umbrella term for all sexualities, as stated in THE 2ND PARAGRAPH OF LGBT. There is no need for a renaming of the category. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Story time?

The important lead paragraph mentions story-time animations.I have no idea what "story time" is. I tried to Google it ... No results.Also there is no Wikipedia article defining storytime.This article should either remove that term, or define it in the lead. 2603:8001:5901:4100:7C52:4C83:262C:A48B (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Story-Time is a common term for videos that talk about a personal experience that someone has had, usually in the form of "Telling a Story". As in the name "Story-Time". This is a relatively common term. If you searched "Storytime animation definition" it would be the first google result. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)