Jump to content

Wikipedia:Source assessment/SSSniperWolf

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

SSSniperWolf now has an article.

This is an overview of sources for SSSniperwolf. (for anyone confused: the first two S stand for "sexysexy", no known affiliation with a certain paramilitary organisation, "SniperWolf" refers to the Metal Gear character of the same name)

As the discussion is all over the place, this page provides an overview of known sources (reliable or not) and whether that source may contribute to notability.

This table was *cough* borrowed from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperwolf (2nd nomination) by User:Siroxo and expanded.

Potentially contributes to notability

[edit]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes HotNewHipHop Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes HotNewHipHop Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Twin Galaxies ~ situational according to WP:VG/S: "TG is one of the first authorities on video game record-setting (mainly score attack), having endured a hiatus and change of ownership with a new site. For modern records and for speed runs, consider Speed Demos Archive and Guinness." Yes ~ Partial
Yes New York Times Yes WP:RSP: "There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns" (this is an opinion column) ~ Only three lines about her: "American English among young people gets more infused by Black English by the decade. My girls enjoy a YouTuber known as SSSniperWolf, a young woman of, reportedly, Turkish and Greek ancestry who pops off casually with Black English words and idioms. For instance, I’ve rarely heard the whimsically scatological “dookie” uttered by someone who wasn’t Black. But she isn’t pulling some sort of quotidian minstrelsy; this effortless infusion of Black English expressions is now routine among many Americans her age and even older." ~ Partial
Yes Polygon Yes WP:RSP: "Polygon is considered generally reliable for video games and pop culture related topics" Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Kotaku ~ WP:VG/S considers post-2022 articles to be situtational and to be avoided. Yes ~ Partial
Yes "Catherine Reagor, Arizona Republic, USA Today Network" Yes WP:RSP#USA Today ~ Two paragraphs of coverage, could be used for some trivia ~ Partial
Yes Yahoo! News Yes WP:RSP: "Yahoo! News runs both original reporting and syndicated feeds of other sources. Editors have treated the original reporting as an ordinary WP:NEWSORG, and thus presumed generally reliable. Take care with syndicated content, which varies from highly reliable sources to very unreliable sources. Syndicated content should be evaluated as you would evaluate the original source. Syndicated content will have the original source's name and/or logo at the top." Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yahoo! News Yes WP:RSP: "Yahoo! News runs both original reporting and syndicated feeds of other sources. Editors have treated the original reporting as an ordinary WP:NEWSORG, and thus presumed generally reliable. Take care with syndicated content, which varies from highly reliable sources to very unreliable sources. Syndicated content should be evaluated as you would evaluate the original source. Syndicated content will have the original source's name and/or logo at the top." Yes ✔ Yes


Yes dotesports Yes Considered reliable by WP:VG/S Yes ✔ Yes
Yes dotesports Yes Considered reliable by WP:VG/S Yes ✔ Yes
Yes dotesports Yes Considered reliable by WP:VG/S Yes ✔ Yes
Yes dotesports Yes Considered reliable by WP:VG/S Yes ✔ Yes
Yes dotesports Yes Considered reliable by WP:VG/S ~ more about Pokimane ~ Partial
Yes The Messenger (website) ~ Yes ~ Partial
Yes The Messenger (website) ~ Yes ~ Partial
Yes Yahoo! News Yes WP:RSP: "Yahoo! News runs both original reporting and syndicated feeds of other sources. Editors have treated the original reporting as an ordinary WP:NEWSORG, and thus presumed generally reliable. Take care with syndicated content, which varies from highly reliable sources to very unreliable sources. Syndicated content should be evaluated as you would evaluate the original source. Syndicated content will have the original source's name and/or logo at the top." Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Hindustan Times Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Hindustan Times Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Hindustan Times Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Hindustan Times Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Time Yes WP:RSP: "There is consensus that Time is generally reliable. Time's magazine blogs, including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy. Refer to WP:NEWSORG for guidance on op-eds, which should only be used with attribution." Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Secondary coverage, unsure about site, but credited author seems legitimate. Yes <--see ~ ~310 words, mostly about subject's earnings ~ Partial
~ mostly interview, verifies and analyzes some statistics ~ industry pub that disclosed a sponsor for the story Yes excluding the interview we have some confirmed stats and minor analysis ~ Partial
Yes masters thesis ~ masters thesis ~ 33 words of coverage. ~ Partial
Yes Yes ~ mostly routine (real estate etc), verifies profession and some subscriber counts ~ Partial
Yes see comment below Yes see comment below Yes Is SIGCOV, (please take care, as much cannot be used for BLP) ✔ Yes
Dexerto (initially presented below)
 Yes no flags ~ No specific flags so not "red" for this article, but it's primarily "gossip" type stuff mostly unsuitable for BLP; while the author seems fine, the source is widely considered unreliable on wikipedia.[1][2] Yes ~ Partial
Yes Forbes Yes Written by Antonio Pequeño IV (Forbes staff), not a "Senior contributor" like the other Forbes article Yes ✔ Yes
Yes NBC News Yes WP:RSP: "There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news." Yes ✔ Yes
Yes seems to be secondary synthesis of other videos and interviews ~ Seems reliable for "gossip" type coverage and little more, we can't reliably source much more from it, esp due to BLP "We don't just report news, we editorialize it in a way that drives the conversation forward." Yes ~ Partial
Yes Insider Inc. ~ WP:RSP#Insider Yes ~ Partial
Yes Yes w:de:Mein MMO, partner of GameStar (best-selling German-language magazine focused on PC gaming) Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

To be determined

[edit]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Use {{source assess}} to add an article assessment
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Irrelevant

[edit]

Maybe reliable, but most of them probably not. But none will add any value over the reliable sources already identified.

No

[edit]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes No WP:RSP#MEAWW ~ ✘ No
No From another article: "Join oil mastery and experience trading at its finest and to make sure that new users have the best trading experience from day one." and "oil mastery" is a link to some garbage. No Has a reliable-looking name and there are other publications using the same name that may be reliable. But this one has no editorial policy. Can't really find anything about them, but they have an article titled "Best Altcoins To Buy - Five Altcoins To Grow Your In October 2023" (yes, it says "Grow Your In") that states "In this article, we'll explore the top 5 altcoins to buy in October 2023 to get 20x portfolio growth." I'll pass. Yes ✘ No
Yes No "Viral" section seems to be only about internet scandals and feuds, possible tabloid Yes ✘ No
Yes Yes No only published coverage is a name in list ✘ No
Yes Yes No 3 words of sigcov - minor award ✘ No
Yes Yes No minor award again ✘ No
Yes Yes No minor award again ✘ No
Yes No valnet property + pseudonymous author = no accountability Yes ✘ No
Yes Yes WP:RSP: "Polygon is considered generally reliable for video games and pop culture related topics" No ✘ No
Yes No bachelor thesis Yes ✘ No
No interview Yes Yes ✘ No
No almost entirely attributed to subject, and seems to keep subject voice without quoting at times, does not seem to have done any further verification past a single interview with subject No Tabloid publication Yes ✘ No
Yes No win.gg is tied to sports betting company Yes ✘ No
Yes No win.gg is tied to sports betting company Yes ✘ No
Yes No win.gg is tied to sports betting company Yes ✘ No
Yes Forbes No Written by a Forbes.com contributor. WP:RSP: "Most content on Forbes.com is written by Senior Contributors or Contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Forbes Councils, being pay-to-publish and similarly lacking oversight, also fall into this category. Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by 'Forbes Staff' or a 'Contributor', and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL beginning in 'forbes.com/sites'; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under '/sites'." Yes ✘ No
Yes Forbes No WP:FORBESCON Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons No ✘ No
Yes No [3] Yes ✘ No
Yes Sportskeeda No WP:RSP: "Sportskeeda is considered generally unreliable due to a consensus that there is little or no editorial oversight over the websites content, which is largely user-written. " Yes ✘ No
Yes Sportskeeda No WP:RSP: "Sportskeeda is considered generally unreliable due to a consensus that there is little or no editorial oversight over the websites content, which is largely user-written. " Yes ✘ No
Yes Distractify No WP:RSP: "There is consensus that Distractify is generally unreliable. Editors believe Distractify runs run-of-the-mill gossip that is unclearly either user-generated or written by staff members. Editors should especially refrain from using it in BLPs. " Yes ✘ No
Yes No Appears to be a blog from a single person, so no RS No Article is only a 20 - 30 sentences long ✘ No
Yes Keemstar No Probably no editorial oversight Yes ✘ No
Yes No Press releases do not contribute to notability Yes ✘ No
Yes No Press releases do not contribute to notability Yes ✘ No
Yes Dexerto No WP:RSP: "Dexerto is a website covering gaming news, internet personalities, and entertainment. Editors agree that it is a tabloid publication that rarely engages in serious journalism; while it may be used as a source on a case by case basis (with some editors arguing for the reliability of its esports coverage), it is usually better to find an alternative source, and it is rarely suitable for use on BLPs or to establish notability." Yes ✘ No
Yes Dexerto No WP:RSP: "Dexerto is a website covering gaming news, internet personalities, and entertainment. Editors agree that it is a tabloid publication that rarely engages in serious journalism; while it may be used as a source on a case by case basis (with some editors arguing for the reliability of its esports coverage), it is usually better to find an alternative source, and it is rarely suitable for use on BLPs or to establish notability." Yes ✘ No
Yes Dexerto No WP:RSP: "Dexerto is a website covering gaming news, internet personalities, and entertainment. Editors agree that it is a tabloid publication that rarely engages in serious journalism; while it may be used as a source on a case by case basis (with some editors arguing for the reliability of its esports coverage), it is usually better to find an alternative source, and it is rarely suitable for use on BLPs or to establish notability." Yes ✘ No
~ recaps information from an existing YouTube video by Paddy Galloway, with no added commentary No WP:RSP: "Dexerto is a website covering gaming news, internet personalities, and entertainment. Editors agree that it is a tabloid publication that rarely engages in serious journalism; while it may be used as a source on a case by case basis (with some editors arguing for the reliability of its esports coverage), it is usually better to find an alternative source, and it is rarely suitable for use on BLPs or to establish notability." Yes ✘ No
~ The Thaiger No Special:Diff/1182681747 Yes ✘ No
~ The Thaiger No Special:Diff/1182681747 Yes ✘ No


No mostly from subject No ~ ✘ No
Yes Hard Drive (website) No Satirical website Yes ✘ No
Yes Hard Drive (website) No Satirical website Yes ✘ No
Yes The Verge Yes WP:RSP: "There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. Some editors question the quality of The Verge's instructional content on computer hardware." No mention only ✘ No
Yes No Personal blog (see homepage of website) No ✘ No
No No "Soest" refers to Soest, Netherlands but the site isn't even about that. It's just global news stories that were poorly machine translated. (it says she "stond in een vuurstorm", a literal translation of "has been at the center of a firestorm" (Forbes) and complete nonsense in Dutch) Yes ✘ No
No No Looks like another machine translation Yes ✘ No
No No Looks like another machine translation Yes ✘ No
No No Is another machine translation from the first Forbes contributor article, unreliable Yes ✘ No
No No Looks like another machine translation Yes ✘ No
Yes No Blatant content farm Yes ✘ No
Fredzone (in French)
 Yes ~ Some articles have clickbait titles, possibly little to no editorial oversight No Passing mention ✘ No
No Mirror page of SVG.com No Duplicate article Yes ✘ No
No Mirror page of themessenger.com's website No tabloid publication Yes ✘ No
Yes ~ Google translation shows that some headlines can be clickbait No vague mention ✘ No
~ Tubefilter has a reputation of being indirectly promotional Yes Tubefilter is generally reliable for uncontroversial topics related to internet culture. No passing mention ✘ No
sabah.com.tr (in Turkish)
 Yes ~ Possible tabloid No mention ✘ No
No Compact version of SVG article (Looper and SVG are both part of Static Media) ~ Possibly unreliable due to the page being a condensed version of an SVG article Yes ✘ No
~ Static Media No Static Media owns a considerable amount of clickbait and/or tabloid news websites. Yes ✘ No
~ Static Media No Static Media owns a considerable amount of clickbait and/or tabloid news websites. Yes ✘ No
~ No Tubefilter is generally reliable for uncontroversial topics related to internet culture. Yes ✘ No
~ Static Media No Static Media owns a considerable amount of clickbait and/or tabloid news websites. Yes ✘ No
Yes Monsters and Critics No No previous discussion, but it looks like a churnalism site. Yes ✘ No
Yes GameRant No WP:VG/S says that GameRant should not be used in BLPs. Yes ✘ No
Yes No Article is largely based on comments from internet users Yes ✘ No
~ NDTV, article consists mostly of quoted tweets ~ No Article consists mostly of quoted tweets ✘ No
~ List of assets owned by Paramount Global#PCM, article consists mostly of quoted tweets ~ No Article consists mostly of quoted tweets ✘ No
~ No Machine translation? Half the lines are nonsense. Yes ✘ No
ShiftDelete.net (in Turkish)
 Yes No Translations show that this website is a content farm No passing mention ✘ No
criptopasion.com (in Spanish)
 Yes No Blog with possibly no editorial oversight No mention ✘ No
antaranews.com (in Indonesian)
 Yes Antara (news agency) ~ Reliabilty is unclear No Passing mention ✘ No
SaralNama (in Indonesian)
 ~ Article consists mostly of quoted tweets No Article consists mostly of quoted tweets ✘ No
Yes dotesports Yes Considered reliable by WP:VG/S No part of a list of participants ✘ No


Yes No Very gossip-y, possible content farm Yes ✘ No


No Looks like a tabloid Yes ✘ No
Yes No Allows guest posts, unclear if/how guest posts are indicated, unclear editorial policy/oversight ~ Largely about her house. ✘ No
~ Allows guest posts No Line between user-generated content and staff content is unclear Yes ✘ No
~ Pinkvilla No tabloid ~ ✘ No
~ Pinkvilla No tabloid ~ ✘ No
~ Pinkvilla No tabloid Yes ✘ No
Yes LegalEagle No Self published Yes ✘ No


Yes No Blantant churnalism Yes ✘ No


hitek.fr (in French)
 Yes No Tabloid Yes ✘ No
No Benzinga No Accepts guest posts Yes ✘ No
Yes Yen.com.gh No WP:RSN (revision 1182860935) Yes ✘ No
No It reports on SSSniperWolf winning "favorite gamer" in the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards of 2020 but both Nickelodeon and Comicbook.com are owned by Paramount Global. As SSSniperWolf was a contestant the source isn't fully independent of her either, but this could be used as a primary source. Does not contribute to notability though. ~ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 22#Did You Know Gaming? Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Links from deleted versions of the article

[edit]

These don't need a full assessment, just move them to the appropriate subsection. First pass is done.

TBD

[edit]
  • done

Now used in article

[edit]

Closer look needed

[edit]

Already knew about

[edit]

Not helping

[edit]

May include some we already knew about, but who cares.

See also

[edit]

Draft:SSSniperWolf

[edit]

Rejected by User:Joe Roe for the following reason: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Additional comment(s):

  • Comment: There is a broad consensus that SSSniperWolf does not currently meet Wikipedia's notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperWolf (5th nomination) for the latest of many discussions) and the repeated recreation of this article has proved disruptive enough that the title has been protected so that only administrators can create it. Given this history, any new draft needs to make a very compelling case that the available sourcing has substantially changed. I'm not seeing any evidence of that here.
    Volunteer time on this project is limited; please do not resubmit this draft until some time has passed and there are significant new sources to present. – Joe (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Source_assessment/SSSniperWolf&oldid=1255568376"