Draft talk:Nick Robinson (YouTuber)

Source rundown

Here's a rundown of the sourcing:

1. Eater: Per this discussion Eater is considered to be probably fine. I am a bit concerned that Robinson worked for one of their sister sites at the time. They didn't know that when they wrote the article, but it's still something people are going to look at. This seems like kind of a weak source at best for establishing notability. Questionable
2. Daily Dot: The site is considered to be a RS per WP:VG/S. It's usable.
3. Kotaku: Kotaku is considered kind of an iffy source per VG/S. It's published during their good years, so probably usable. The source is kind of short, though.
4. Vice: In the past I've seen people say that the site is unreliable because they engage in gonzo journalism. At the same time, there are people at RS/N saying that it's reliable (here and here. There's another discussion, however, here in regards to a controversial topic that says that it's a weaker source. So my opinion is that it's probably usable but that it's going to be a bit of a weaker source.
5. CG: The site is considered a RS for anything published 2024 or onwards. Anything prior to that, we have to make sure that the source isn't user generated content. This looks like it was probably a staff member, given that the article mentions that the magazine reached out. So usable.
6. Intelligencer: This is put out through New York Magazine, so it's usable.
7. Kotaku: This is only an offhand mention, so it's WP:TRIVIAL at best. It's so brief that I have to question why this video is mentioned in the article at all. It seems in kind of poor taste, considering that it's followed by the sexual harassment allegations. Unusable for establishing notability.
8. Laughing Squid: Robinson isn't really the focus of the piece - the game is. It could be used to back up the general statement that he uploads videos about video games, but it's unusable for the purposes of establishing notability.
9. Inverse/Input: The site is a RS, so usable. It's a bit on the brief side, though.
10. Nintendoomed: This is something you'd probably have to ask about at the Video Game reliable sources page. I wasn't able to really determine much from the site. So questionable, I suppose.
11. Cultura Geek: Same goes for here. Both this and the above are pretty short articles. So questionable.
12. Kotaku: This is another brief mention, so it's another trivial source. Unusable for establishing notability.# InGame: This is another where you'd have to run it through the VG sources page or WP:RS/N to establish if it's usable. So another questionable.

There are usable sources here, but overall it looks like Robinson is really only notable for the allegations. The coverage for that is overall limited to the year the allegations were made. There's an article from 2019, but I don't know if that's enough to show sustained coverage per WP:CRIME. Other than that, the articles are generally on the shorter side, making them kind of weak sourcing. Some of them only mention him in passing and some are from sites that aren't really proven yet.

I don't really know if he's notable enough for inclusion. I'm going to bring this up at WP:VG to see what their opinions are. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

So that's four sources that are usable? huh 1timeuse75 (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Potentially. The two big issues here is that the best sourcing is about the allegations, which appear to have never gone to court. There's some usable sourcing for some non-allegations, but most of that it is on the shorter side.

So if we include the probably usable sources, what we have here is this:

• Allegation specific: Daily Dot, Kotaku, Vice, CG
• Non-allegation specific: Intelligencer, Inverse

If the questionable sources were deemed usable, then that would help out a lot. Same goes for if the video game WikiProject were to consider the allegation coverage to be usable to help establish notability - they may ask that we also go through WP:BLP/N for that, though. It's just one of those situations where it's better to be super cautious since allegations are of course inherently controversial.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were to say that he passes but suggest edits to remove emphasis on some of the trivial coverage. I'll post another section on what I would personally recommend in that situation. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Suggested tweaks

I have some recommendation for tweaks to the video game journalism section.

For the Polygon section:

• Remove the claim that Daily Dot praised his humor. This was likely pulled from the first paragraph. They're describing what made him appeal to fans without actually taking a stance of their own. It's not really accurate to say that they're praising his humor, especially as it's followed by them calling him out for still being in the gaming industry.
• Avoid using the term "best known", as that can be subjective to the reader. It's better to just use "known".
• We could probably summarize the allegations part a bit more, but it's generally OK.

For the YT section:

In this I would recommend giving just a general overview of what he does. If you highlight something, limit it to things that were the focus of their own articles. Even then, apply that cautiously since it's generally assumed that he's going to cover gaming things on his channel and not everything needs to be highlighted. I would particularly recommend that we avoid mention of the penis in Far Cry 4. It's a trivial mention and honestly, it just feels a bit weird since it's surrounded by information about allegations of sexual harassment. The mention of the most popular video is probably OK, but one of the biggies is that it's based on an article that's about 7 years old so it's potentially no longer accurate.

To that end, the Patreon info isn't really pertinent to Wikipedia and is also based on that same older source. Now, you could have information about his subscriber and view counts on YouTube in the infobox. Wikipedia has a template especially for this, Template:Infobox social media personality.

Anything else, it would depend on what people think of the sourcing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Changed everything here!

Thanks!!! 1timeuse75 (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)