Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Allen (internet personality)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a7, no real notability asserted, or WP:SNOW if you prefer. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] James Allen (internet personality)
NN person. Being popular on youtube does not make a person satisfy WP:N meshach (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete 320 subscribers is a modest success in YouTube terms; inhabitants of List of YouTube celebrities typically have subscription numbers in the many thousands. Google isn't turning up much in the way of independent coverage of this individual. --Tom Tresser (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, borders on an A7 speedy. Blueboy96 21:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as he's only known by a restricted youtube "community". -RiverHockey (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No independent reliable sources are given. Dekisugi (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment the List_of_YouTube_celebrities should have some criteria for inclusion. For those of you with YouTube experience, is a million views significant? What criteria should be applied to this list? Should it be somebody whom an article has been written about who clearly meets WP:N, regardless of view counts and subscriptions? I think so, but the list seems to imply the opposite, which I think fosters the addition of articles like this one. JERRY talk contribs 00:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- As answered again and again on its talk page, the criteria are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Independent sources, and Wikipedia:No original research. Lists of people should not necessarily all be links. It is the overlinking of lists of names that results in biographical articles that don't satisfy our criteria, not the lists themselves. Uncle G (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This article is unencyclopedic. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This article is at best a piece of self-indulgence. A million combined views from all videos is insignificant. And even if the number were many times that, I would not see how a hit-counter is a relevant measure of notability. Wikipedia should not be a clearing house of narcissistic youtube celebrity, short of possibly exceptionally notable situations like LonelyGirl 15; then only because of the unbelievable level of legitimate media attention from the resulting fallout. Cordell (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
