Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Shyu

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 keep. For those who consider coverage of the article subject not to be balanced, please work on improving the article as the rough consensus here is to Keep it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Shyu

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article doxxes the YouTuber "TechLead," and Wikipedia should respect the YouTuber's privacy and pseudo-anonymous name.

Further, the YouTube channel is a satire channel built around a fictional persona, and so should not be confused with the real name of the actor. For instance, the paragraph about the person being "sexist" is factually incorrect - this was a satire tweet (later deleted and apologized) as an over-exaagerated commentary on "wokeism" culture, which unfortunately some people mistook for being real. For Wikipedia to publish this without the context might be considered not only defamatory, but it's unfair and lacks context. TechLead has in fact published multiple videos in support of women and mothers in tech, and his commentary on tech being "hostile" towards mothers is not an attack on women, but an attack on the industry for parent rights rather. TechLead has published 300+ videos, a mix of which some are useful & inspirational, while some are intentionally controversial or provocative to gain attention for the YouTube algorithm. To create a Wikipedia page about 1 or 2 satirical videos of a fictional character, and to then portray them as fact in a negative manner using the real name of the person is inaccurate and out-of-context.

The character might also be considered "not famous enough," as there are far far bigger YouTubers.

I would propose to simply delete this page. If disagreeable, an alternative would be to fairly portray the subject matter by summarizing the 300+ videos and not just cherrypick a few subjects, and to publish this under the name "TechLead, YouTuber" rather than the doxxed name. Techleadhd (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not really doxxing when they have media pieces about him. The sources used are fine for GNG. His name and handle are used here [1], not useful for notability here, but it takes about 5 seconds in Google to find out about him. Oaktree b (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CNBC piece mentions his real name and links to the youtube page of his persona. This isn't hidden info, we're able to mention it here. Oaktree b (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CNBC piece illegitimately doxxed the YouTuber without consent, and Wikipedia should continue to respect the privacy of individuals who choose not to be doxxed. Techleadhd (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the subject of the article? You have to respect WP:COI if you are. Oaktree b (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources have already named the article subject by his real name, so there is no "doxxing". To the contrary, the subject's public self-promotion makes him a public figure. The channel doesn't identify itself as a satire channel in its bio, and none of the reliable sources cited by the article describe it as satire. The article can't include a summary of all the channel's videos; that's original research, which is not allowed. This nomination, from an account with the same name as the article subject's Twitter handle, strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, specifically the "This makes me look stupid!" argument in the list on that section. White 720 (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's doxxed himself by giving interviews if that makes sense. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His real name, photo, and YouTube persona all appear on the home page of Tech Interview Pro, a commercial venture that appears genuine (i.e., not satirical) White 720 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same bio appears on DeFi Pro, which ~~he just launched this month~~ he launched earlier this year. White 720 (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the contents of the online course DeFi Pro can be attributed to the individual, the contents of the YouTube and Twitter handles are published as satire under the pseudoname and should not be attributed. A distinction should be made here because YouTube content is typically created for the Algorithm to gain attention, and so it is typical for YouTubers to disassociate their real names from their channel names. Techleadhd (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Shyu linked his YouTube channel directly from his bio on his online courses. Irrespective of what YouTubers typically do, this particular YouTuber has chosen to link his channel with his businesses. White 720 (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well he doesn't disclose anywhere on youtube that it's satire. I doubt that statement. And his name is linked directly from the About on his YTube page going to Tech Interview Pro, about your instructor. It's not hidden. We can't ignore it here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the AfD opened, I added some additional information to this article, including comments about projects he has launched. White 720 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Wikipedia is not LinkedIn or Facebook. The article cherrypicks a few negative opinions about a YouTube persona and publishes them under the doxxed name in a non-representative manner as if this were some sort of biography. Wikipedia should not be publishing about non-notable individuals.

Techleadhd (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Struck duplicate vote, this is the AF nominator. Primefac (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the same person as in the article, just tell us please. That helps the deletion discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nom is by a WP:SPA who also opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Patrick_Shyu. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this diff, User:Techleadhd identified himself as Patrick Shyu. White 720 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So there is a COI. I think we have to strike all his !votes above, if I'm not mistaken. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are; the subject of an article is allowed to make their case on an AfD page. The only real restriction (and it's not even a policy, just a guideline) is on them editing the page directly. Primefac (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that WP:GNG is met. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new information added seems balanced and NPOV. We're simply reporting facts available to the public; I can understand if the individual perhaps wants to hide from the more negative information, but we aren't here to hide information. Criminal or not, it's easily found on the internet and repeating it here helps to balance out the narrative. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all the sources I've been able to find and that are in the article for this person are of questionable reliability or likely unreliable, such as Business Insider, Candor, ShethePeople, Benzinga, The Quint, and Reclaim the Net. Those really aren't good sources. The best quality ones, CNBC and Times of India are both about comments he made about working at facebook, which I don't think is exactly encyclopedic content, and isn't enough to indicate notability. So I'm not seeing the notability here. --Tristario (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2022 (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.