Wikipedia:Existence doesn't warrant a statement

Just because there is a citation showing that something exists doesn't mean that it qualifies for inclusion in an article. This essay specifically refers to internet culture BLPs, but can apply to any subject.

Recently, I've been going through a PetScan query for YouTuber articles that have too many primary sources. The most common error, by far, is the tendency to add a statement, with the only citation being proof that the thing exists, or that the thing happened. Here are a few examples:

Person mantains a section on their website for answering questions^{[ref = the questions page on their website]}

In 20XX, person released a new series of gaming videos.^{[ref = links to episodes of the series]}

There doesn't necessarily have to be a reference pointing to the thing either:

Person released a follow-up video the next month, although it ...

Here's an actual, non-made up example from here:

His acceptance speech for the award was notably curt, as he walked up to the mic, said "Thank you", and immediately walked off the stage.^{[ref = a video of him doing just that]}

These citations prove that the thing exists or happened, but not that its worthy of inclusion in the article.

Wikipedia's sourcing policy on biographies of living people is more stringent, and indiscriminate inclusion of trivial events only serves to bloat articles and give internet culture articles an even worse reputation than they already have. If you're wondering what policy these statements violate, I would say no original research and undue weight, since they provide the same amount of emphasis as what was actually discussed in secondary sources. These statements also make articles longer than they actually should be. Don't be afraid to boldy remove mass swathes of text that have this error.

See also

• Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability
• WP:SELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF