Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arin Hanson


 * 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. ignoring all these non-policy based WP:SPA accounts which never gave the proper sourcing to rescue this article. Secret account 03:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Arin Hanson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not quite a candidate for speedy deletion, but is non-notable and a BLP with unreliable sources. I originally proded it, but the author contested it after sourcing some of it.

Could potentially slither into WP:NOTABILITY eventually, but "internet fame" isn't supported by 75k twitter followers. Alan(E) 02:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What about nearly 900,000 subscribers on YouTube? https://www.youtube.com/user/egoraptor. Also Wikipedia has a page for Charlie the Unicorn, Danielle Mackey, and Star Wars Kid have pages: it seems like either we should have a 'Metal Gear Awesome' page, improve the Hanson page to Wikipedia standards, or at the very least review what is constituting as 'internet famous'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinesToThePaper (talk • contribs) 02:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the legitimacy of "Internet Famous" people on wikipedia should be reviewed. At the moment there are a number of pages that both continue to exist and are being deleted that fit under this category with the only difference between the safe and threatened ones being the preference and attentiveness of editors. There needs to be a ruling so they can be universally deleted or maintained, with some criteria to decide what stays and goes. In the meantime either delete this and the pages mentioned in the previous comment (at the very least the Danielle Mackey one) or let them all stay until we know what we're doing. 24.114.252.242 (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be my position as well. My argument for Arin Hanson's legitimate position as a person of note is partially due to the impact he's had on Flash animation culture (practically inventing a genre of inspired duplicates), his widespread image amongst video game fans, and his prolific contributions to projects featured here on Wikipedia (search Egoraptor). The 'finger moustache' tattoo has a page so I think it's not entirely unacceptable to have a page for someone who has contributed significantly to the 4-Chan era of the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinesToThePaper (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theopolisme ( talk )  04:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. We don't need any sort of ruling on "Internet Famous" people. We already have WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Hanson fails all of these criteria. Pburka (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete agreed, our existing criteria covers this well enough already. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  05:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - we have notability guidelines and they are pretty clear, in my opinion. We don't need to "review" our guidelines for "internet celebrities" just because a particular internet celebrity doesn't currently meet our guidelines. This is an encyclopedia - it covers things that have been covered by (mostly mainstream) media and sources. That means, sometimes, the less mainstream things don't get covered. But that's no different to ye olde paper encyclopedias that didn't cover every travelling snake-oil salesman or puppet-show practitioner (trying to think of historical equivalents to internet celebrities). Find me a couple of reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject and it'll be a different story. Stalwart 111  06:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now, but leaning towards delete. I was originally thinking that this would be a clear case of delete on my end, but after cleaning out all of the fancruft from the article and essentially turnign it into little more than a stub and a filmography, I did manage to find some sources that back up some notability for him. I want to note straight away for some of the previous keep rationales that popularity does not equal notability here on Wikipedia. You can be popular but still not receive coverage in reliable sources. It just makes it more likely that he'd have received coverage. The biggest problem here is that what I have found is rather light. Much of his notability stems from two things: his Metal Gear Awesome series and his time on The Tester. Everything else he's done has essentially gone unnoticed by reliable sources. I managed to find two relatively decent-ish yet brief articles on the MGA series, but they focus on the show rather than Hanson. There are two articles that comment on individual Tester episodes, but that's not entirely a depth of coverage. That's essentially what's bugging me right now- there isn't a depth of coverage. There's enough that I'm mulling this over and really trying to dig for sources, but there isn't a lot out there. As far as claims of him being a trendsetter, you'd have to prove that with RS and since those are lacking in general... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't WP:ENT relevant for this article? It is for other ones about internet celebrities (see Danielle Mackey), so why wouldn't this apply here? 77.117.246.211 (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep temporarily, but improve* - There are thousands of people on wikipedia that are in show business that have less on thier pages. I'm not saying that those pages should not be up for consideration, but considering the exansive career Arin has, it is worth of being at least considered. Arin's page is sorely lacking, and if stays this way, I would say delete (there are other, more through places to find information on him) However, to really bring him to notable levels, more of his work that has gone outside of the internet should be considered, and added. I dont know how much there is, and if not enough can be found, then i would push for deletion rawr &#62;:3 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, but improve - As a contestant of Season 3 of The Tester (whose elimination from the show was the subject of quite a bit of coverage, as I recall), as the voice of Bruce Banner on the PlayStation 3 and Wii versions of Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, as the voice of the Forest Guardian in the independent comedy film Press Start, and as the voice of everything in the iOS game Minigore as well as the voice of its main character in other media, Arin should meet the basic criteria as a notable person without even going into his animation work, his YouTube or Newgrounds fame, or even the coverage on his views of various games on websites such as Destructoid and Joystiq. Considering the rest of that, he may just meet the WP:ENT standard, as well, for having such a large fan base (one large enough to get him voted onto The Tester, no less). I do not consider myself a writer, but I will try to rewrite the article to focus on how Arin gained the fans he needed to get on The Tester and the controversy surrounding his elimination from the show as that, in my mind, encapsulates everything that makes him notable. I am putting my thoughts here so that others who can write better and faster than me can see them and come up with their own ideas. User:CardsOfTheHeart (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * — CardsOfTheHeart (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is the user's only non-userspace edit. Alan(E) 04:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, but improve He's done the voices of many characters from many games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.185.4 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the IP's only edit in 7 years. Alan(E) 04:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, but improve - He's done voice work on video games, appeared on TV shows and has a big internet following. Sources of his notability exist but haven't been put up yet due to how recently made the article is. - SuperTiencha (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, but improve - I think he can be seen as WP:ENT, as Hanson has more YouTube subscribers than internet series and persons like Charlie the Unicorn and thus a larger fan-base. Also, (following a better Wikipedia entry and similar topic/person such as Danielle Mackey) I'd like to see a bit about Arin's personal life here, some more external links to social networks (I'm about to do this now) and maybe the bit about his appearance in the Tester written in full sentences. - Danadewaal (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * — Danadewaal (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment (Nominator): What's with every argument for keeping the article having a "but improve" appended to it? (And interestingly, 3 of them are from users with no visible editing experience.) Do you expect the closing admin to close this with "Result: It fails the standards but maybe somebody will improve it eventually?" It's up for AFD because it currently fails the standards, which User:Tokyogirl79 explained quite well in her argument. Alan(E) 04:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what Alan is trying to say is that it's nice to meat you all! Ha ha. Don't worry, I can't see an experienced admin giving those not-a-votes any credibility. Transparent as glass. Stalwart 111  04:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No offense (and maybe my ignorance is showing here), but it seems silly to me to delete an article on a notable person just because it currently fails to meet the standards. (With that logic, there are probably THOUSANDS of other current articles that need to go up for deletion before this one--but this is not the place for that debate SO DO NOT DEBATE THAT HERE.) On those grounds, though, the article as it stands as of this comment should most definitely be deleted. I am working on it, though. -CardsOfTheHeart (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it's silly to delete an article because the subject doesn't currently meet notability standards - that's exactly what AFD is for. But it would be silly to delete such an article and decree that it should never be created again (WP:SALT). That's exactly why we have things like WP:TOOSOON and WP:UFY. I don't think anyone would object if you wanted this transferred to your own userspace if you accept the subject is not yet notable but you contend he might be one day soon - at User:CardsOfTheHeart/Arin Hanson draft for example. That way you can continue to work on it (and you won't lose previous work) and you can ask to have it moved back to article space if/when he does become notable. Stalwart 111  08:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm contending is that while the subject does meet the basic notable person standards, the article, as it is currently written, is not up to those standards. I'll just leave it at that and continue tinkering with it in my userspace. -CardsOfTheHeart (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand, but that's not really what AFD is about. Articles generally shouldn't be sent here because they need cleaning up. If the subject passes WP:GNG but the article is a mess, then the article should be kept and cleaned up. But if the article is clean and well written, but the subject fails notability guidelines, no amount of extra article clean-up will save it. Whether or not the article itself meets things like WP:MOS is irrelevant here. This is about whether the subject should be included at all. I don't think anyone suggested this should be deleted because the article was in need of clean-up - they suggested as much because, in their view, the subject doesn't meet inclusion criteria. "Adding sections" to the article won't help the subject meet WP:GNG - that can only be done by adding references that verify significant coverage in reliable sources. Stalwart 111  22:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, no wonder we have a disagreement. You're talking strictly WP:GNG, whereas I've been claiming WP:ENT and, by extension, WP:BASIC.
 * WP:ENT criteria:
 * Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:
 * Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
 * He's the voice of Bruce Banner in a Marvel game published by Activision for multiple platforms. His voice was used for the entirety of a game made for the iOS (Minigore) whose main character has showed up in other published media. He was a subject of controversy on a reality show produced by Sony. In my mind, those are significant roles in multiple productions.
 * Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
 * Winning an online popularity contest to appear on a reality show should tell you all you need to know.
 * Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
 * He is prolific on Newgrounds, one of the leading sources of Flash animation. He regularly posts animated movies that become Daily Features and Weekly Users' Picks. Three of his animations (Metal Gear Awesome, Metal Gear Awesome 2, and PokeAwesome) have been selected as Review Crew Picks for 2006, 2008, and 2011 Movies of the Year, respectively. And surely having the founder of Newgrounds call one of your movies one of the best cartoons "in the Universe" must count for something? You just can't have a proper conversation about Flash animation on Newgrounds without mentioning Hanson's accomplishments.
 * For those reasons, I truly believe Hanson is notable. And if those reasons aren't good enough, then we just agree to disagree and I say nothing further on the matter. CardsOfTheHeart (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Always happy to agree to disagree. My reading of the consensus on such things is that a lot of the things you point to aren't generally accepted as conferring notability in the contexts in which you raise them. But you're certainly welcome to make a case - I'll not stand in the way of that. Stalwart 111  02:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE - I have added sections to this page in order to get the page towards WP:ENT standards. If, after this, the page does not meet notability standards in enough people's eyes, then so be it. There is nothing more I can think of to do to this article. CardsOfTheHeart (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2013 (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.