Talk:Adam the Woo

Adam's death

It states Adams friend climbed into his 3rd story bedroom window. He didn't. He looked in the window and saw Adam's lifeless body laying in bed. ~2025-43041-21 (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Fixed – Thanks, good catch. StonyBrook _babble 12:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced changes of "Orange County, California" to "Orange, California"

Article on the former name and article on the latter for convenience

Other involved editors: TRMrupee (talk · contribs) and Bigs7 (talk · contribs)

I came across this article and did a bit of copy editing

When I returned and saw that that revision was no longer the current revision, I checked the history out of curiosity and saw that TRM had changed the mention of Orange County at the start of the "Personal life and death" section to the city, without support from the nearest source

I manually reverted that edit, and performed a minor edit

When I checked again, Bigs had performed three more edits, effectively restoring the claim that he specifically lived in the city (the first does not give me reasons to object; the second and third do)

In his second edit, Bigs changed the residence to Anaheim, California, saying in his edit summary, "Woo stated this in several videos." (violation of WP:RSPYT)

In the third edit, he restored the City of Orange, saying, "Realized I put the wrong place. Sorry Woo fans."

I wanted to revert again but didn't want to create an edit war, so I'm starting this thread Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I found the source for the original version stating it was the county in this Daily Press article. It seems that Bigs7 has seen videos where the subject stated he lived in the city, but we wouldn't be able to use that here. Even so, sometimes sources get things wrong. For example, Fox has been reporting that the "adamthewoo" channel was started in 2009, with multiple outlets repeating it; however, anyone can check the channel description to see that it was in fact started in 2006. Therefore, the article states that the channel was started in 2006, and Woo started to upload a lot more content in 2009. But in regards to Orange, it's not wrong to state that it's about the county, because that's what the source says, and anyway the city is part of the county. StonyBrook _babble 12:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Well... the issue is that Bigs7 is stating with certainty that Adam lived in the city, when sources only say that he lived in the county and we can't <ref> his YT

I might revert a second time and see how stuff pans out Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I just remember some videos of him saying this but it would take a while to find and it’s fine if you switch it back. All good and Happy Holidays. Bigs7 (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

:3 Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 15:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Not notable

Most of the "reliable" sources used for citation are re-hashes of the same article just AI-Reposted on different locations. This entire entry is being added to boost engagement on a now deceased YouTube personality who outside of a very small community has not garnered the notability to be recognized on Wikipedia. Almost none of the information listed in the article can not be verified and can be argued as false. ~2025-42867-92 (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I think WP:AFD is a better venue, given the fairly major sources that have covered his death. Zagalejo (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

"Not garnered the notability to be recognized on Wikipedia" is entirely based on your personal opinion, which the major publications covering the story all contradict.

Heavy coverage of death establishes notability. ~2025-43343-62 (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Yet no one sourced anything published about him from when he was alive? If he was notable there would have been things about him, but yet, there are none. Outside of a fanatic meager following, he does not have the merits to be recognized on Wikipedia. Please continue the discussion on the AP:AFD thread linked at the top of the article. ~2025-43239-69 (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Block evasion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Want to say something here... but not sure what. Not an editor or any kind of an expert on these things... you all seem to be so far outta my reach. The guy made a million people smile... maybe not enough for hardcore analysts like some of you - but enough for some of us simpler, naive folks. Every day... Wikipedia deaths are full of politicians (elected and appointed),from every country in the world. Many of them don't have more than a mention along the way to their pursuit of the gravy train. Leave Adam alone... don't know much about him but I know I got a kick out of some of his offerings. He was important to many people. So am I. ~2025-43109-44 (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

“leave Adam alone”? Sorry this isn’t a fan page, it’s a talk page to discuss the article. I find it odd that he didn’t have a page while living, but has one now because he passed? Also the sources for this article aren’t very good, I don’t even know if some are a reliable source.

The sources seem like AI repetition. Paige Matheson (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sensing some Wikipedia snobbery here. A person's pre-deceased status isn't valid criteria for creating a new article (I'm referring to the "didn't have a page while living" comment). I would suggest the commenter do some homework before opining. In the meantime, I would refer everyone to the "Don't demolish the house while it's still being built" Wikipedia article which sums up my arguments for leaving the page alone (help suggest improvements instead).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_demolish_the_house_while_it%27s_still_being_built DocumentContributor (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You’re not sensing snobbery. And me do my homework? Why don’t you do your homework on reliable sources instead of directing me to an essay that reads “This page in a nutshell: Content that does not yet meet Wikipedia's standards”. Paige Matheson (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Let’s be honest this isn’t about Wikipedia standards, it’s about editorial snobbery. Adam the Woo’s influence, longevity, and independent coverage exceed what countless existing pages already have. Pretending otherwise while hiding behind policy essays is lazy and dishonest. Wikipedia is supposed to document reality, not curate it based on which creators make certain editors uncomfortable. If Adam the Woo doesn’t qualify, then half the site shouldn’t exist. ~2025-44021-76 (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Likewise, please refer to Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. A proper check for notability should be done before creating the article, not the other way around. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia article"

Technically, it's a page; "article" is reserved for pages in mainspace (and even then, not all of them) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Infobox view count sourcing question

Just a small clarification question for consensus: the infobox lists a precise YouTube view total (416,240,766 as of Dec 31, 2025). The article body supports “hundreds of millions of views” via secondary sources, but I didn’t see a source for the exact figure. Happy to leave it as-is if that’s standard practice; mentioning here rather than tagging.Bimple (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned in my edit summary, the sources are the linked channel description pages themselves, where the view totals can be ascertained by clicking on 'more'. See Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves and Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. StonyBrook _babble 14:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying; I mainly wondered if rounding is preferred over exact figures.Bimple (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Influence and legacy section sourcing

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I noticed my recent addition was reverted with the summary “YouTube opinions not valid.”

To clarify intent: the proposed section was meant to summarize documented peer reactions following Williams’s death, not to assert independent notability or add original analysis. I understand concerns around self-published sources and WP:RS/WP:SELFPUB, and I’m happy to rework the wording or limit citations to secondary coverage (e.g., People, LA Times) already used elsewhere in the article.

If there’s preferred sourcing or phrasing that would make an influence/legacy mention acceptable, I’m open to adjusting accordingly.Bimple (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Youtube links are allowed. It is being used here as a primary source for the info regarding Justin Scarred, someone important in Adam's life, calling Adam a significant presence. Since the YouTube link is being used as the main authoritative source on this sentence, it is completely 100% viable for the article, and the person reverting the edit is incorrect. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links Devann (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR. The people article doesn't not list any of the YouTube what so ever. The YouTube video used is meaningless to be used as a source. This section isn't needed at all. The information in that section has already been covered in other ways in the article. The section also feels very opinionated.The Youtube video is from his opinions and isn't backed up by facts, in addition none of the others are mentioned. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To clarify: the intent was not to use “YouTube opinions” as stand-alone sources. In this case, Justin Scarred’s remarks were cited because they were referenced and republished by secondary outlets via wire coverage following Williams’s death. The YouTube video is the original medium of the statement, but the notability comes from its uptake in reliable secondary reporting, consistent with WP:PRIMARY and WP:V. The language in the section was factual and descriptive, not evaluative. I’m open to adjusting wording or sourcing if needed.Bimple (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

As Bimple stated, the purpose of the source is to verify the remarks stated by Justin Scarred and A. Does not constitute as OR because the source is the person who said the statements himself. OR is in relation to a user adding content to a page that they discovered on their own, and has nothing to do with this information. The source is the person who said it - Justin Scarred. The evidence is the YouTube video where he said it. The official source, he himself. Please stop reverting these edits. Devann (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

That his his personal opinion and experience, nothing is fact or proven with any other source that he had influence on other people. Sources need to be better. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

You do not remove content from an article for poor sources. You add a citation needed tag. Devann (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Poorly sourced information can be removed. I did remove it and you kept reverting it. You failed to take it to talk page after I reverted your edit and was reverted before from another user. This information is Original research and doesn't belong here. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

As someone who has contributed to Wikipedia since 2008, believe me when I say that the information is not original research and belongs in the article. I am also aware that you have a history of doing this to other users and I am not going to be bullied by your tactics.Devann (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

You only have 195 edits. I am saying that it is Original research and is improperly sourced. In addition opinionated information. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

You are not the authority on what is or isn't viable to add to an article. If you continue this disruptive behavior (including reverting my talk page, which you have no authority over) I will submit a complaint to the adminstrative team for vandalism and harrassment. Devann (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

If someone else who is more experienced than me and you, states otherwise it is fine, it will be left alone. However I am also basing just you wanting the information added as you are a supporter of Adam and have no intention of adding factual well sourced information to the article. YouTube videos shouldn't be used as sources. All the other YouTube videos are Adam's witch are fine to use as a source. While the other information is backed up with proper sources. This information isn't backed up with more proper sources. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

After looking into the videos, the problem is that the video from the vloggers is not really noteworthy, reliable and is Adam's Friend's option and not stated by Adam himself, If Adam stated that he was an influence to those vloggers in his videos than we could use it as a source that is from his YouTube channel or an interview from an official news source on the other vlogger maybe able to be used as well. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The purpose of this section is to document verifiable, attributed peer responses following Williams’s death, not to assert independent claims of influence. I’d like to retain a brief Influence and legacy section summarizing documented peer tributes following Williams’s death. Justin Scarred’s remarks, for example, are made on his own YouTube channel and were also cited in secondary coverage, making the source valid under WP:PRIMARY and WP:V. YouTube statements by the speakers themselves can be used to verify their views; the section would strictly attribute opinions and avoid evaluative claims. I’m happy to refine wording or focus on secondary sources if needed.Bimple (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

For clarity, citing a speaker’s own statements on YouTube is permissible under WP:PRIMARY when attributing their views; it is not “opinion” or automatically disallowed. The section would strictly attribute statements and avoid editorial claims, consistent with WP:V and WP:SELFPUB. Bimple (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

For context: I have been a Wikipedia editor for 17 years across many articles. Regarding Adam the Woo, I previously participated in the article’s AFD, arguing for deletion, which was declined. My current edits are intended to improve accuracy and sourcing by adding verifiable information, not to promote Williams personally. These contributions reflect standard editorial work and do not reflect fandom or advocacy.Bimple (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad the edit warring has ceased, because that is a blockable offense that will not be tolerated here. As far as the disputed content, I agree with Magical Golden Whip in this case; none of the other vloggers mentioned are notable, so we are getting into WP:FANCRUFT territory by including them. Use of a 3rd-party YouTube video that doesn't even mention any of them except himself is definitely not okay, and needs to stay out of the article. As I already mentioned to Bimple, while it's technically okay to have YouTube links from Woo's own channels to add important facts, there are already too many of them in use here. A few of the latest additions are depending on blogs, Facebook, and other unreliable sources; this is not an optimal trend, because using these has the potential of obscuring the reliable sources in the article. Those are the ones we should be finding more of. And while we're at it, let's make sure that the sources cited actually back up what the article says they are saying. StonyBrook _babble 08:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

My apologies for all that. I was merely defending Bimple's work. If you, the primary editor of the article, agree it doesn't belong, then I will concede. Devann (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Devann There is no primary/ownership of an article here. Editing is open to everyone. I reverted Bimple's edits then you reverted then I reverted again at that point you should have stopped and took to the talk page just like Bimple had done. He has following WP:BRD. However you wanted to just argue and revert instead of talking about the issue at hand. I was going to report you for this but decided not to as I was in the wrong for too many reverts as well. I did try and warn you once but you decided to just not listen. Next time an edit is reverted leave it and discuss. You are welcome to your opinion, but the key is discussing the issue. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I accept the broader concern about including non-notable vloggers, and I’m not advocating for restoring all of that material, or even its own sub-section. However, I think Justin Scarred is a distinct case: he is independently notable, and his tribute was reported by multiple reliable third-party outlets (e.g., People, New York Post), not solely via YouTube. Even if the other names are not appropriate to include, I believe a brief, attributed mention of Scarred’s response is defensible on sourcing and notability grounds. I’m happy to defer to consensus or discuss a narrower way to reflect that coverage.

Proposed compromise wording for the article:

Following Williams’s death, fellow YouTuber and longtime collaborator Justin Scarred paid tribute to him, among other vloggers, with his remarks cited in multiple national media outlets. Bimple (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC) Bimple (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Forget about the WP:NYPOST because it's been deprecated. The People article mentions Justin "Scarred" Willits of the Scarred, but all he does is bemoan the loss of his close friend, which adds nothing of substance to the article. See Kurt Cobain § Aftermath for an example of how Wikipedia covers the reactions of (notable) close associates to a tragic death. Also see MOS:TRIVIA and the essay WP:Handling trivia. A relevant item for a section like that would be an official commemoration of some kind—such as a street naming or something similar—but it's a bit too early for things like that. StonyBrook _babble 15:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I understand that personal reactions can verge on trivia, and I am not proposing inclusion of mere grief. My goal is to reflect verifiable peer recognition reported by reliable outlets. Following precedent such as Kurt Cobain § Aftermath, reactions from notable contemporaries may be included if sourced. A minimal compromise could read (minimal, neutral, sourced):

Following Williams’s death, fellow YouTuber Justin Scarred paid tribute to him, among other vloggers, with his remarks noted in coverage by multiple national media outlets.

This phrasing aims to document the coverage in a factual, sourced way without overemphasizing minor reactions. Bimple (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC) Bimple (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Jim Williams’ YouTube statement regarding Adam the Woo

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I previously added a brief note to the Legacy and death section about Jim Williams’ January 2026 YouTube video addressing his son’s passing. The edit was reverted, with the claim it was unencyclopedic, so I’m raising it for discussion to determine if it can be included neutrally and verifiably.

Suggested wording for the article:

In January 2026, Adam the Woo’s father, Jim Williams, addressed his son’s passing on his YouTube channel, thanking supporters and noting he planned to share further memories of Adam in future videos.

Rationale: Factual statement from a primary source. Neutral phrasing, no speculation or editorializing. Precedent exists for including brief statements from family members about notable figures. Complements coverage of Adam’s passing in reliable sources without giving undue weight.

Feedback on phrasing or clarity is welcome. Bimple (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Your edit wasn't fully reverted—it was modified. Just because something happened doesn't mean it automatically gets included. I thought the video was significant enough to post in External links, but not in the article body; there is absolutely no reason to place grieving relative's or friend's recorded musings in the body of the article, because nothing they are saying adds anything of real substance to the subject. Another editor could just as easily come by and remove that link also. I have already mentioned a few times now that the amount of YouTube videos in this article is reaching a tipping point, which will only invite others to come in and remove it all, but for some reason you are not hearing what I'm saying. As for the Yahoo Creators reference, it's a niche publication listing all the subject's non-notable friends reacting to his tragic death, so I wasn't convinced there's anything of much importance there. StonyBrook _babble 18:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thanks for clarifying; I understand that the change was a modification rather than a full revert. I also understand your concern about the article approaching a tipping point with YouTube sources, and I take that seriously.

My intent in raising this on the talk page was not to insist that the video belong in the article body, but to clarify where consensus reasonably falls. If the consensus view is that a primary-source statement from a family member is better confined to External links—or omitted entirely—I’m fine with leaving it there and not pressing the issue further.

I appreciate your perspective, and I won’t reintroduce similar material into the article body without clear agreement. Bimple (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wrote my earlier comment myself, it was not AI, and it was meant to raise concerns about sourcing and potential circularity, not to insist that any material remain in the article body. Bimple (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

article issues

There are several issues with this article. The biggest one is sourcing which leans too heavily on Adam’s own YouTube videos to back up claims that really need independent coverage, especially around bans, milestones, and disputes, so he is basically verifying the information himself. The article also frames these together as if they all fail for the same reason, when they don’t carry the same weight. The future-dated material makes parts of the article look speculative, and instead the article should stick only to information that’s already been published and verified. The career section reads like a play-by-play of everything Adam ever did on his channels, with most of the information coming from his own videos, so the article ends up stitching together a story that no verifiable independent source has actually told. It feels a lot like original research, and gives undue weight to every little milestone. The sources should be focusing on what reporters and other media outlets have actually noted as notable. Braneyac (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking over this article a bit more I notice a few problems in the lead section. Phrases such as "one of the earliest content creators" and "he was known for" assert significance and reputation rather than describing verifiable activity, which gives the lead a promotional or fan-based tone rather than an encyclopedia. Also, while the article does mention his involvement with music later, the lead lists him as a musician without any context or indication of relevance. Since the lead primarily focuses on his work as a vlogger and YouTuber, which is what he was known for primarily, it may be clearer either to briefly clarify or give a context to the music reference, or to leave it to the later section where it is already discussed in more detail. His musical background alone would most likely not qualify him for a wiki article.

As a newer editor, I’m bringing these suggestions here to discuss rather than making major changes without agreement. Braneyac (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

If you have an opinion, be bold and change the article as you see fit Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone ahead and deleted a ton of YT-cited claims Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The banned user in the above sections introduced a host of YT links that added a lot of WP:UNDUE detail to the article. I tried to warn them not to abuse WP:SELFSOURCE, which is very easy to do for a vlogger who documented literally everything about his life for the last 26 years. But I went ahead and restored the bit about how he got the name Adam the Woo, because that is something that benefits the WP:READER. I don't know why they removed the events of the subject's final day, but I restored that too. StonyBrook _babble 11:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Bimple? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Well it wasn't me, so probably. Devann (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes I saw you play devil's advocate at User talk:Bimple Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

(no bad faith intended) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Braneyac, thanks for noticing the obvious about this article's reliance on too many primary sources. But the future-dated material (by that I assume you mean the toxicology report) is something discussed in sources, so we can write about it here too. Wikipedia has the advantage of not being a WP:PAPER source, so we can update the article once the (highly-anticipated) report becomes available. Until then, I'm sure a reader of this article will want to be kept informed about developing events in the case. StonyBrook _babble 12:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@StonyBrook I still feel that there is way too much original research in this article. Nobody but Adam himself noted any.of the milestones, such as the MLB ballpark visits, or any of the other of the "achievements" noted here, they weren't discussed in any other media or anywhere else online. Also he may have been a musician, but that fact does not belong in the lead paragraph description. From what I can find online his time with the band Guttermouth was only as a touring bassist for five months, which in itself is not noteworthy enough for a wiki mention as a description of who he was. He was famous for being a vlogger, not a musician. Braneyac (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

'Fifty states' has been reported in multiple reliable sources, as has 'five years' (for the latter, People, The Economic Times, Fox, etc.) The Tampa Rays thing was introduced by a now-blocked user, but the fact that the subject was a Rays fan can be gleaned from USA Today and Daily Press, so it's not preposterous. I disagree with you about not saying musician in the lede; just because he focused less on this later in life doesn't make him any less of a musician. We regularly add other significant endeavors of people's lives in the lede (Jennifer York and Thomas F. Wilson are two examples who immediately come to mind, but just look around and you will find that this is entirely normal). StonyBrook _babble 15:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@StonyBrook I think we’re talking about slightly different things. My main concern is with the huge number of very specific milestones (MLB ballparks, various “firsts,” etc.) that no independent source I can find treats as notable. Specific details in the article pieced together from Adam’s own video content, rather than discussed by reliable secondary sources, feel a lot like original fan-based research. Regarding the Rays, there’s a difference between sources mentioning he was a fan and then turning those baseball-related activities into notable, wiki-worthy "achievements." I’m not saying he was never a musician, just noting that isn't how he’s primarily described in reliable sources - he’s overwhelmingly noted as a vlogger/content creator. A five-month stint as a touring bassist doesn’t feel like a biographical defining identifier, even if it’s worth mentioning later in the article. Braneyac (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

You lost me with 'huge number of very specific milestones'; all I can see are the three we've discussed above. If the Rays thing bothers you, it can be removed. To repeat, he doesn't have to be primarily discussed as a musician for it to be in the lede. It was his springboard to becoming a vlogger, since he started filming his roadside attractions while touring as a bass player. Another vlogger who has been reported to be a close friend in reliable sources also started with him on the punk circuit as part of the Scarred (Justin), and the punk thing also explains a lot about the quirkiness of these characters, so it's important in order to be able to paint a complete picture. StonyBrook _babble 17:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@StonyBrook You’re right, my wording was an exaggeration, and I really meant mainly the Rays-related activities. The concern regarding the "milestones" isn’t with the details themselves, but with giving them too much weight in the lead. Things that he documented himself in videos belong further down in the career section, unless reliable sources treat them as major achievements. I’m not dismissing any of these parts of his life. They’re interesting and worth including, just not front-and-center in the lead part of the article. I also get that touring as a musician helped shape his early vlogging and his personality, and I’m not disputing that it’s part of his story. My concern is just that the lead currently makes it sound like he was regarded in citable reliable media as equally a musician and a vlogger. Right now, search engines even reflect that, giving equal weight to both claims because of how the wiki article is worded. It might read more accurately to focus on him as a vlogger in the lead, and include the music experience in the early career section, where it explains how he got started and what his influences were. Braneyac (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I took another look at the page and I wanted to note I appreciate the direction of the edits so far. Many of my concerns have been addressed and I look forward to the article improving. Braneyac (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The Daily Press calls this person a musician. A musician includes people who are "performers, who perform for an audience". Here are three recorded instances where he was filmed performing before large audiences. This is enough for me to call him a musician outright. StonyBrook _babble 20:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@StonyBrook Leads reflect how people are actually described in reliable coverage. In the coverage I’ve seen, including The Daily Press, the music angle comes up only as background, not as something he was equally known for alongside vlogging. As I already said, calling him a musician isn’t wrong, but giving it equal space in the lead feels like more weight than the sources give it. It seems like we’re drifting away from how his notability is discussed in independent coverage and into interpretation. Braneyac (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@StonyBrook Looking carefully at the examples you gave, both York and Wilson are discussed in the sources cited on their wiki pages as having multiple prominent careers. Adam’s musical career is mentioned only as context for his early vlogging. I’m not trying to argue this endlessly or dismiss the point that you’re making, I just don’t see those examples as supporting giving equal weight to music in his lead. Braneyac (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Johnny Carson was well-known to be a drummer in addition to being a talk show host and comedian, but the lead of his article does not include his musical career or interests, even though he played the drums many times in his show and famously used his pencils as drumsticks. Paul Newman is known for being an actor, which is what is mentioned in the lead of his article, and even though he is also a but ness man known for spaghetti sauce it is not mentioned anywhere in the defining lead part of his article. I can give many other such examples where a known secondary interest is not how a notable person is defined on wiki. Braneyac (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

The two examples you've cited only further bolster my point. Johnny Carson could play the drums, enjoyed practicing this craft at home, and sometimes even played a set on TV; he also drove a car, and once did a few laps on a racetrack—but we don't call him a musician or a driver, since he did not do those things professionally (playing drums as part of a band for audiences) as Woo once did. You said ... even though [Paul Newman] is also a [businessman] known for spaghetti sauce it is not mentioned anywhere in the defining lead part of his article. Thank you for proving my point that Newman, who was primarily known as an A-list Hollywood actor, has this sentence in his article's lede: He co-founded Newman's Own, a food company that donated all post-tax profits and royalties to charity; i.e. his prolific acting credits do not diminish the fact that he also sold spaghetti sauce as a significant side hustle. StonyBrook _babble 12:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

For your information, Braneyac (talk · contribs) may be safely ignored as a now-blocked sock of Bimple (talk · contribs) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 03:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Cause of Death Revealed

His death has been revealed -- Gideon5407 (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Although a primary document posted on Reddit doesn't exactly cut it, the article has now been updated from a secondary source. StonyBrook _babble 09:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I completely understand. I generally don't use Reddit for sources, and I should've specified with a "i don't use Reddit as a source, but its going to be floating around." Next time, I will be sure to emphasize. --Gideon5407 (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Gideon5407