Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Day


 * 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   delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Alex Day

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Apparently fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Vast no. of refs but overwhelmingly from subjects own web sites and ones directly associated with him, blogs, other self-published sites, minor or very indirect (or even apparent non-) mentions. Doddy Wuid (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that there are problems with the sourcing; however, to demonstrate notability or lack thereof, the current state of the article and referencing is irrelevant. The question is: do adequate sources exist?  I find 2 brief mentions in Wired:, , but the coverage in those articles does not suggest notability in any way.  The most detailed reliable source I could find was this interview: .  I'd change my recommendation however if there were a couple other sources found that were as detailed as that interview.  Also as a note, the band seems to get more mentions, without naming this guy by name:  -- if there's going to be a page I think it ought to be centered around the band as the band has more coverage and this guy has no coverage except through the band.  Cazort (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agree with Cazort in saying that the band is far more notable. Day does not really seem notable himself. — Half  Price  17:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Coverage seems to be sufficient to me.  This is far from the average BLP AfD where the person has never been mentioned in the press.  He appears to be one of the top Youtubers from the UK.  See also Talk:Alex_Day (28 April 2010 talk page post).--Milowent • talkblp-r  19:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  —Milowent • talkblp-r  19:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Didn't see that rather impressive table, it's swayed me. Extensive coverage on several renowned sites. — Half  Price  19:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Look carefully through that list. As Doddy Wuid noted above, most of the references are from self-published sources.  Can you point to the "extensive coverage" on "renowned" sites?  There are some reliable sources in that list, like the BBC site, but that particular source doesn't even mention Alex by name.  As an example of the way the sourcing is inadequate to establish notability, there is a BBC article discussing the Vlog Tag Game, but that article does not mention Alex Day by name.  Preceding that is a comment claiming that Alex Day invented this game--but no reliable source is given, instead, only a youtube video (which is self-published and is thus not a reliable source to source a factual claim) is given.  Thus, what appears to be a claim of notability really isn't one.  Spot-checking the article has given me the impression that the overall state of the article is like this.  Cazort (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I now realise that I actually can't decide, so I'm just going to abstain . Thanks for your help. — Half  Price  17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." - Being interviewed on a program hardly qualifies as a "role". "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." - First, his claim to invention of the vlog tag game is dubious; second, how is that game unique or innovative in any way; third, how can "reading the Twilight novel" possibly meet this test?! "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." - I'd say the few (not many) published works cited are pretty much all trivial. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." - Whilst Day was a member of the Chartjackers project, Day did not write, compose or perform on the single "I've Got Nothing". His role was more of a promoter/producer of the single. "Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre" - Whilst Day often claims to have "invented" the "genre" Trock, and some journalists unquestioningly accept this assertion, Day did nothing of the sort, as the article itself acknowledges. The show Doctor Who dates back to the 1960s and people have been writing songs about it for nearly as long. Merely coining a term to describe a collection of songs (which could hardly be accurately described as a "genre" of music) does not equate to establishing a school/tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.178.126 (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm actually familiar this with this guy, and have quite enjoy watching his videos in the past, but I'm afraid that I don't think there is currently enough notability for an article about him. A Thousand Doors (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: There are several points in the "Notability Matrix" on the 'Talk' article that are debatable at the very least. Let's deal with some:
 * Delete - Per the wonderfully thorough reasoning of 202.83.178.126 PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I think I've made my mind up now! I don't think I've ever seen such a well-thought-out argument from an IP. Shame he can't sign his posts! — Half  Price  18:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. From the Findsources template above, Google News reveals many sources for "Alex Day", but few (hardly any?) seem to be about this person. A similar search for "nerimon" reveals just six sources, with only one of them being in English. With regards the "Vlog tag game" issue that 202.83.178.126 raised, it seems to me to be pretty certain that he did in fact "invent" it, but that, as also stated above, it is unfortunately not a "unique, prolific or innovative contribution to a field of entertainment". Similarly, I too feel that the "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" argument can only really be applied to the Chartjackers article in this instance, since that was the name under which the track was released. 92.8.40.70 (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete leaving aside the issue of notability (although i agree that this individual is not notable), i think one of the main problems with this article is how it is laid out. by dividing it into sections about this person's "career" in music, television and new media makes it look more like his resumee than an encyclopedic article. i feel that, since this is a biography, the events described should really be written about in chronological order, so, if not deletion, at the very least a complete rewrite is required. tbh, i'm a little surprised that this wasn't deleted per WP:G11. 81.105.179.16 (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2010 (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.