Talk:Jaiden Animations

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)

Real name

Some ip's have removed her real name, citing WP:BLPPRIVACY, however, even with the sparse coverage, the name is out there... on YouTube, imdb, medium.com, etc. So, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" would seem to apply, the last part in particular to the imdb and YouTube posts.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't cite anything off of IMDb, but Medium and Ten Eighty appear to be fair game. If she self-publishes her family name then that can be cited too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC) updated 17:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right AngusWOOF, I wouldn't use imdb as a source, my point with them is that they are even more careful regarding privacy than WP, and if someone objects to a real name, they will remove it. And those other sources were simply what I found in a 30 sec. search. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that IMDB and YouTube are not at all reliable enough sources to justify this kind of BLP content. Furthermore, it is well known that she does not want her last name public, as you can see from the comments section of this page, for example, as well as from her videos in which she blurs out her last name. The issue of whether her last name should be included also came up in the first AFD and it ended up being removed before that version of the article was deleted. Therefore I think the last name should not be included (except maybe if TenEighty is considered to be a reliable source). IntoThinAir (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

There's a website called Teneighty that referred to her by her real name, but it's still questionable as privacy for now as the other major news sources (not Metro (UK)) aren't using it, and she doesn't self-disclose it. Medium is considered not reliable per WP:RSP, so I am striking my previous statement.AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mbdfar:: I fail to see how the obituary is not enough to support the other instances of her being called Jaiden Dittfach elsewhere on the internet, such as being pointed out above it is on IMDB as well as her Linkedin, which has a picture of her clearly. Since we can't use those, what's needed is sources to support that. In the obituary, it says Hugo had grandchildren including Jaiden and Jaxen. Jaiden has repeatedly mentioned her brother Jax in videos, such as here (this wikipage uses her videos to cite info clearly) and in this video she talks about visiting family in Canada, where Hugo was a resident. Rusted AutoParts 20:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: I'd invite you to read WP:OR. In short, there is no reliable source to back these claims. You are piecing together a bunch of unreliable sources, just because they corroborate with each other doesn't make them acceptable to use on a WP:BLP article. Mbdfar (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

What is unreliable about her own videos which I have stated have been previously used on this exact article to cite info? Rusted AutoParts 21:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mbdfar: and isn't piecing together sources to back up information like, part of the process? It's not circumstantial or OR, it's literally supporting the info. Rusted AutoParts 21:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Does that video state her last name and relation to Hugo Dittfach? If not, you are using original research to cite a BLP article. Mbdfar (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I've provided several pieces of evidence to support it, you being obtuse doesn't change that. Rusted AutoParts 21:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No, you are violating WP:SYN. I'm not being obtuse, take it up with the policy writers. BLP articles should be held to a higher standard. Mbdfar (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

SYNTH? Lol. Whatever dude, have it your way. Rusted AutoParts 21:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mbdfar: local newspaper article of her at the time with a picture of her. Is that good enough? Rusted AutoParts 21:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Lol using a middle school "newspaper" is pretty creepy. Do you honestly think thats a WP:RS? Mbdfar (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Why does her last name matter so much to you? Let her have her privacy until she chooses to publish it herself. Mbdfar (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Without commenting on reliability, that still doesn’t make the connection between her real name and her YouTube channel. Ideally, her name would be supported by a several reliable, secondary sources that clearly state that connection. Primary sources (like the obit used previously) can be iffy per WP:BLPPRIMARY. clpo13_(talk) 21:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The source I linked is solely about her, with a photo included to prove it is indeed the same person in the infobox photo. Rusted AutoParts 22:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mbdfar: It’s not a school paper, it’s a town paper. And it’s creepy to try and cite a last name you insist other sources can’t be used for? When has Wikipedia operated on giving people privacy when it’s constantly publishing details like birthday/education/health issues. And it doesn’t matter to me at all, but this is an encyclopedia, I thought info gathering is part of building the encyclopedia. Her last name is out there, I'm not the one exposing it. Since it’s literally a piece specifically about her I do not see how you can call it unreliable. Rusted AutoParts 21:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not that the information is incorrect or that it can't be found in a quick Google search. WP:BLPPRIVACY states Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. We need to wait until she consistently uses the name on her channel or other public social media, or reputable news outlets begin to use it regularly. Neither situation is true in this case, and her entry reflects that. Only one citation to a local community paper from 2010 (way before her YouTube career) is not good enough, especially when she has explicitly expressed a desire to not have her full name published. Aranya (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

So with her last name now sourced with a different source, what is the hurdle with putting Hugo Dittfach in here? Rusted AutoParts 22:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Even if her last name was sourced properly, there is no link between Hugo Dittfach and Jaiden Animations in the obituary source. It says Hugo has a granddaughter named Jaiden, that's it. Any extrapolation on your part would fall under WP:OR, which is not allowed. If there is a reliable source that explicitly states the connection, then it would be mentionable. Based on the primary source video you cited, you could add that she has a brother Jax and family in Canada to her personal life section if you really wanted, but again, anything else is unsupported. Mbdfar (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to chime in: her surname can be seen in her interview with Anthony Padilla (10:00). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

That should be case closed but I sense it still won’t be satisfactory to other editors. Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This is definitely case closed. Even though Youtube usually isn't a reliable source, that's Jaiden herself referring to a picture signed "Jaiden Dittfach" as her own. I also remember seeing multiple articles describing er family with the name Dittfach, one of which leaked one of her mother's (Lynn Dittfach) facebook posts of her children (one of whom clearly matches Jaiden in appearance). The reliability is unquestionable and anybody who says otherwise is grasping at straws, the main issue now is whether it should be included since the legality of how her last name was found is questionable, but even then the Anthony Padilla interview is solid, legal, evidence. I would love to hear any fake excuses about Jaiden herself pointing to an artwork with her last name on it, saying it's hers, of being WP:OR just because she doesn't explicitly say "my name is Jaiden Dittfach" in those completely exact words, even though she referred to an artwork with the name as hers. If somebody argues that Jaiden doesn't want her last name out there, I'd agree in the past, but the subject herself gave casually mentioned that that was her full name. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Under basic human privacy, this content should not be added. Jaiden has officially requested that her surname NOT be added to the public. This is a direct violation of basic human privacy. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon Do NOT continue to add this content, I will not hesitate to contact an administrator if this becomes an issue. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@PerryPerryD:, I think removing it because Jaiden requests not to have her last name be too public is fair, though you don't need to act so vitriolic about it. I do, however, think all claims of original research should be completely thrown out the window and that your claims of original research and hypocrisy are fully unwarranted, because during that interview, that is Jaiden herself stating that that is her name. Even though youtube isn't usually a reliable source, that changes when the subject (aka the primary source) confirms something themselves. Again, if Jaiden requests not to have her name there, sure, but the source is indisputable despite it being on youtube because that's the primary source herself. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

i talked directly with an administrator about the situation, the sources provided here were considered unreliable. this discussion was made on the Discord server. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon I apologize for my attitude about the situation however, I just felt that something was off. I Should not have acted that way, my mistake. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@PerryPerryD: Thanks for apologizing. Can you post a screenshot, or quote, the admin (and their username, so I know who it was) who stated that the source was considered unreliable? I normally would agree that Youtube isn't a reliable source, but considering that this is the primary source and subject of the article, I thought it would be acceptable had the subject not wanted their last name not too public. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I will have to get back to you with that, also the source in question was just the youtube source and some of the alternative sources mentioned above. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:32, 22 March 2022 (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. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)