This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
@Onel5969:You added a tag to this page suggesting that Jackson Bird may not be sufficiently notable to warrant a page. I'd love some advice on this front. Per [1], an entertainer is notable if they have "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Doesn't Jackson's YouTube channel with 86,000 subscribers and more than 6 million views meet the threshold for a "large fan base"? He's also frequently interviewed as an expert on the trans experience, but I haven't included those as references since Q&A articles aren't considered reliable references by Wikipedia. But it seems like that might help establish his notability somehow. (If you google "'Jackson Bird' transgender" you'll get 17,000 hits -- I include "transgender" in my search criteria to exclude the hits for Jackson Bird the cricket player.) Anyway, it seems to me like between his YouTube following and his high profile as a speaker about the trans experience he should qualify as notable, but I'm not sure how to document that according to Wikipedia's standards when the vast majority of articles are Q&A's with him rather than articles ABOUT him. What do you think? Grn1749 (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grn1749, 86k subscribers on YouTube is definitely not a measure of notability. Now, if that figure was 50 or 60 million, it might begin to mean something. What WP looks for in notability is not google hits, or subscribers, but in-depth coverage. That being said, I am unsure of this person's notability, which is why I simply tagged it, rather than prodding it or sending it to AfD. I'd like other reviewers to look at it. Onel5969TT me15:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found it pretty easy to find a few good references for Will It Waffle? There is also plenty of coverage of his involvement in the HP fandom, which could be tentatively expanded although I'd be a bit cautious of this as it can be a sensitive topic in the context of writing about a trans person. His book gets quite a lot of hits too so I think coverage of that can and should be expanded. Anyway, I'm pretty sure we are OK for notability even if the YouTube subscriptions alone are not that high. DanielRigal (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
