Draft talk:Supermega

Possible revisions and the future of this draft

Per asilvering's denial on 6 March 2022 and AngusWOOF's denial on 27 July 2020, I want to get a conversation going about how to improve this draft's references and possibly get this article published for the boys.

So, looking at the most recent feedback, asilvering gave two pieces of feedback:

1. the references don't show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article, and
2. the sources are not reliable.

Before that, AngusWOOF left a comment about:

1. using the top WP:THREE external news sources that have covered their channel, and
2. removing all references to videos and social media.

I'm not sure if AngusWOOF's second point is about links to videos and social media in the References section or references to their videos in the article's actual content. I'm assuming it's about the References section, and if so, that's an easy enough fix: just take out everything that's not an article citation. I think that means trimming the article a lot (like A LOT-a lot) but a much shorter published article is better than no article, right?

As for picking the top three articles (if you don't know, WP:THREE is about picking three solid references for an editor to review rather than making them find a needle in a haystack), I'm of the mind that the Distractify article, the Speed Sport article, and the Game Rant article are the best bets. I thought about using The Gamer article, too, but it has a slightly more casual voice (they use first-person plural "we"), they don't explain who/what SuperMega is, it's a little shorter than the Game Rant article, and the two are owned by the same company (i.e. Valnet).

I'm going to spend the rest of this post explaining why I believe the three references I've mentioned (Distractify, Speed Sport, and Game Rant) meet the criteria of references that show a subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article (it states "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."). If there's a sense of consensus among users who have contributed to the page so far, or, better yet, if asilvering or AgnusWOOF chimes in, then we can start a new talk post planning out changes to the article.

In-Depth

Being "in-depth", i.e. having significant coverage, means that the articles don't just make a fleeting reference to the subject matter. It means that the articles address the topic directly. The Distractify, Speed Sport, and Game Rant articles do this.

The Game Rant article talks about SuperMega and how one of their videos was seeing increased viewership during the "Storm Area 51" event. It doesn't talk about how multiple YouTubers were cashing in on the "Storm Area 51" event, it doesn't talk about how certain types of videos were seeing upticks in viewership, it talks about how SuperMega's video was seeing new life and being shared again. Similarly, the Speed Sport article isn't talking about how entertainers were pairing up with Nascar drivers or how Nascar has had weird partnerships in the past—it was talking about SuperMega's partnership with Nascar. Same with the Distractify article, perhaps most clearly. It's giving an account of controversy within SuperMega and only SuperMega. It's addressing the topic (SuperMega) directly in a way that doesn't necessitate original research. Each article tells you plainly and succinctly who they are and what they do.

Reliable

On the Notability page, the subject of reliability is also mentioned. Wikipedia doesn't post articles that have been built from unreliable sources because they're prone to false information and bias, both of which directly contradict what Wikipedia actually is.

The three articles I'm electing for the WP:THREE are all reliable. Are they the biggest news sources out there? No, but they are all publicly available. None of them were created by SuperMega, nor are any of them in any way directly benefitting SuperMega. None of them support user-submitted materials. Neither Distractify, nor Speed Sport, nor Game Rant have negative reputations of using unbiased language or presenting overarching extremist views.

Secondary

A secondary source is some sort of documentation that discusses information that was originally presented elsewhere. These types of sources don't have direct knowledge of the situation, i.e. they don't claim to have witnessed events first-hand, but they are relaying the first-hand information of another source.

Once again, the Distractify, Speed Sport, and Game Rant articles meet this criterion. SuperMega would be the primary source for things like the Lex controversy, the Nascar announcement, and the area 51 video's second life. Matt and Ryan making publishing a video is the first presentation of the information shared in that video. A news outlet selecting the most pertinent piece of that information, rearranging it, and consolidating it into a suitable format is the nature of a secondary source, and that's exactly what these articles are doing. None of them claim to have insider information or speak with a voice implying otherwise. They plainly state information, give quotes, and summarize the speculated consequences.

Independent

Independent sources "portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views." Wikipedia doesn't allow anything produced by the article's subject or one of the subject's affiliations to be used as a reference. The means advertising, press releases, and autobiographies are all out.

Once again, these are all independent sources. They are in no way, shape, or form affiliated with SuperMega or any of its affiliates. SuperMega is (I believe) an incorporated business in the state of California. They produce visual media and online content but do not distribute any sort of written word (besides their Patreon posts and their fiction novel). Speed Sport is owned by Turn 3 Media and Game Rant is owned by Valnet. Distractify is owned by Quinn Hu, Yosef Lerner, and Jake Heppner. Don't know what type of company structure they have (LLC vs inc.) but I am confident that it is NOT owned by SuperMega. Ergo, all three are independent.

In conclusion

There ought to be a Wikipedia page for SuperMega. I'm a staunch believer that, even in the ever-growing YouTube landscape, they are significant, noteworthy entertainers. This page would be a useful and relevant repository of information about SuperMega, and we have an obligation to revise this article until it earns the approval of Wikipedia editors. I want it to be the best it can be.

That's why I've put so much thought into how we can get there, why the three articles I've been going on about are our best shot at publishing the article (or at least getting closer to publishing it). Like I said before, I'm looking for feedback from other editors or contributors. If I'm not missing anything, then we can get to work on making sure this article's content aligns with the content of its references and doesn't introduce anything that isn't verifiable. Conmcdon721 (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)