Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Avidan


 * 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 keep. Notability discussed and established during the AfD discussion. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  08:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Dan Avidan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails to assert the subject notability. No known Reliable Sources present, the only sources are a fan wiki, and the subjects own website. A quick google search provides nothing that would pass WP:RS as far as I can see. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This was originally a redirect to Ninja Sex Party. If notability cannot be established, maybe it should be redirected back there? Adam9007 (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ninja Sex Party as Nom. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment As I stated on the talk page of the article in question, I do not feel it should be deleted, as I think there are enough web sources to support the article. Nonetheless, even if it is determined that the subject of the article is not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, then it should be kept as a redirect page. I am, in fact, the creator of the page, and created it in 2014 as a redirect to the Ninja Sex Party article in the first place. Therefore, I agree with Adam9007's view. -- Matthew  - (talk · userpage · contributions) 20:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The page has become far more notable due to the improvements made by Tokyogirl79. It should certainly be kept. -- Matthew  - (talk · userpage · contributions) 01:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and I nearly both PRODed and AfD myself, there's simply nothing minimally actually convincing of solid independent notability and my searches found nothing better. At best, we should at least delete and then redirect and also then protect....as there are no signs at all this can be acceptable soon. SwisterTwister   talk  20:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect: Converting the article into a redirect would be the most beneficial option. The article doesn't meet any notability standards. However, deleting it would lead users to nothing, rather than the subject's corresponding "parent" article, Ninja Sex Party. As an additional note, the Ninja Sex Party article contains a good portion of this article's information, anyway. As an additional note, this page seems to be the result of Dan expressing his opinion on the fact that he doesn't have a Wikipedia page. As a result, it seems unimportant and unrelated trivia is being added to bolster the article's appearance. snoɯʎuoɥʇuɐ 23:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Given that Dan's notability spans two well-known music groups and a well-established YouTube platform, I think this could be given a second chance. A case could be made that there isn't enough information about Avidan. However, a case could also be made that with enough digging, this article may become passable. Tokyogirl79 has a solid point. snoɯʎuoɥʇuɐ 15:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't delete the article, it will make him feel bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.62.182 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC) — 73.109.62.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Redirect per above, doesn't seem to meet notability standards at the moment but is an obvious redirect. ansh 666 21:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements made by Tokyogirl79 below. ansh 666 23:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:GNG. I don't know feelings that much, I'm almost practically half-robot. Might as well program them into me. Kylo, Rey, &#38; Finn Consortium (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I've never written an article to make some yahoo feel good! White Arabian Filly  Neigh 23:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I fail to see why this page is marked for deletion! Dan Avidan is just as worthy of having a page as many of these other big YouTubers who have pages on here! For instance, Arin Hanson and Ross O'Donovan. Why is Dan being nitpicked? He has just as much notability as both of the aforementioned. I could find others too! Also, 3 years ago I could have understood having this page redirect to Ninja Sex Party, but he is now much bigger than that! He is now a part of the band Skyfall, as well as Starbomb, and the obvious Game Grumps! He is much bigger than just NSP now. He deserves it! EctoEgbert (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC) — EctoEgbert (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That may be so,, but without reliable sources that prove he is notable, we're not going to go anywhere. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect Dan's page is essentially ripped from the Ninja Sex Party page, with a few extra tidbits that don't really add much to the article. Sure there are people who have articles that are in the same realm as him but the simple fact is that there's more notable information about them than him. Zombivacation (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep because the article is now more notable and separated from the NSP one. Zombivacation (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect As many have said above this article doesn't need to exist. His bands article covers most of the important info about him. Just add personal info of the members to the band's page, instead. That way you could even include Ninja Brian's information. 69.251.135.98 (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I think its been at least sourced better, and seems to have more reliable information than before. I say we keep it. 69.251.135.98 (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. RA 0808  talkcontribs 03:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect I feel it falls short of GNG but if a page for NSP exists, then it should be re-dir there. Eagleash (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There are numerous audio sources straight from Dan Avidan himself on the Game Grumps youtube channel. The wikia page referenced has a few of them, but it takes a lot of time to track down audio and turn it into a biography. I would not advocate for redirecting to the 'Ninja Sex Party' page because that page does not describe the other works done by Dan and the other projects he's participated in. Also, this is not a discussion that should only be taking place while the page in question is in restricted mode.CZauX (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC) — CZauX (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Dan's own youtube channel "Game Grumps" would not be considered a Reliable Source neither would the Wikia page. As far as I'm aware there is no policy that bars discussion on deleting pages if they are semi-protected, Can you point to such a policy? --Cameron11598 (Talk) 07:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Game grumps falls into a self-published source on ones self. It is used as a sort of biography at times, and is most likely the best source of information outside of a published biography. However, due to the conditions of internet celebratism, actual interviews and published information on their life can be quite negative, so I think its a very happy middle that grants enough information to know some background without getting too personal as a biography would. Not to mention that this is 2016, not a lot of people have biographies made about them when their story is already out there on the internet. GG is also not the only source of information, Dan is majorly affiliated with many groups, as has been stated in other posts here. There may not be a specific policy barring deletion, but its a good idea to allow users to cite sources and improve a page during the discussion. CZauX (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Cite reliable, secondary sources, yes. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect per arguments above. Prof. Mc (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect back to NSP per nom. I recommend that the SPA keep voters review Wikipedia's notability policies and other stuff exists. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Keep per the points made by below and subsequent article contributions - I originally voted redirect because I thought that Dan's notability was limited to NSP and was not notable enough on his own, at which point it seemed best to redirect to NSP. I agree that a redirect to NSP no longer makes sense because Dan is linked to multiple notable groups (can't redirect to everything). Given that, and Dan's co-founder involvement with each group, makes him notable enough in the relevant notability guidelines to keep.ZettaComposer (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Provisional keep... for nowKeep.: This is a little tough. On one hand, Avidan himself hasn't been the focus of any specific coverage in independent and reliable sources. This is Avidan in specific. However I will note that he's the co-creator of two notable groups, Ninja Sex Party and Game Grumps. Both of these appear to be notable enough for their own entry and as someone who is familiar with both groups I can say that he's fairly equally well known for both. Now if we're going to go by the rules of WP:ENTERTAINER, that guideline states that someone can pass if they've "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." One could argue that being a co-founder and major participant in a notable comedy group and a notable YT channel would classify as a "significant roles in multiple productions". NENTERTAINER doesn't specify what these productions have to be, just that there has to be more than one and the roles have to be significant - which Avidan's roles are. One could also easily argue that the GG channel could qualify as comedy.
 * I think that in order to say that Avidan is only notable for NSP we'd have to first argue that GG isn't notable, which is another battle in and of itself. Offhand I'm leaning towards a keep since he's a member of two notable groups and in order to argue that he fails NENTERTAINER we'd first have to put GG's article through AfD and prove that it fails GNG or NWEB. I'm aware that Avidan made a comment about wanting an article, something I don't really prefer (even though I am a GG subscriber), but I think that automatically re-redirecting this because he said something is not a good reaction here - and some of the redirect arguments center around him asking for an article.
 * Now if the GG article goes through AfD and is deleted, this should absolutely be revisted at that point in time. However right now Avidan technically passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing to a stronger keep. He's also a member of Starbomb, which passes notability guidelines for musical groups. That means that Avidan is a member of two performing groups that clearly pass notability guidelines, Starbomb and Ninja Sex Party, as both have charted on Billboard. That would make him pass NENTERTAINER easily enough. Now GG is somewhat in question, but offhand it looks like it'd probably pass - albeit a close pass. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I just realized that Starbomb lacked an individual article despite both of the group's releases charting on Billboard (having two notable albums qualifies them for an article), so I've created said article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The TL;DNR of the above is this: While articles should not exist simply because someone asked for them, we also shouldn't delete them because they asked for one. That the article previously served as a redirect doesn't mean that it should continue to be a redirect, as we need to take into account the notability of the groups Avidan is affiliated with. Two of them absolutely pass notability guidelines and one is questionable, but appears to pass on a cursory glance. Membership or heavy involvement with two notable groups/productions is typically all that is required for musicians and performers and while it's generally expected that coverage will be heavier, there's enough here for Avidan to pass notability guidelines for performers (or if we want to be specific, as a musician given he's part of two Billboard charting groups). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging for their opinion - I can't ping everyone, but I figure that you're a good voice of reason here. What do you think of my rationale? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , NBAND is quite clear: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." There is no evidence from reliable sources that this person is individually notable. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect not even close. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I really, really want to hear more opinions on what I've written. To restate my point, Avidan's notability is not solely based on Game Grumps. He's a member of two comedic musical groups, Starbomb and Ninja Sex Party. Both of these musical groups have released albums that have charted on a major national music chart, Billboard, something that makes these musical groups pass WP:NBAND. Now if it was just one group, we could argue that Avidan could redirect to that one group - as was previously done - however now he's a member of two notable groups. The guideline that we redirect performer pages is really only meant to apply in pages where the performer is only known for or participates in one group - and he's known for both. He's also known for Game Grumps and while the sourcing in that article is shaky, it appears to be notable enough to where participation in that group would pass notability guidelines. I also have to point out WP:PERFORMER, which while a separate guideline from the notability guidelines for musicians would also arguably cover Avidan considering that Starbomb and NSP could be seen as comedic acts. In other words what we have here is someone who is part of two notable musical ensembles and one semi-notable YouTube group. All three have their own articles at this point in time and none except for Game Grumps appear to be even questionable. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that a lot of this is a knee jerk reaction to Avidan requesting an article (albeit apparently indirectly) - we shouldn't automatically get rid of an article because someone requested it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also asked about this at WT:NMUSIC as well. It just doesn't seem right that someone who is an important and major member of two notable musical comedy groups would fail notability guidelines. There's something very, very wrong about that situation because if we were discussing movies (ie, if his affiliation with the various groups were instead films) I doubt that his notability would even remotely be in question. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And to think, before this AfD, 2 editors insisted that this isn't just non-notable, but an A7! Adam9007 (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as his fame is notable enough to justify the existence of this page, and for arguments made above. Hyliad ([User talk:Hyliad|d]]) -- 17:25 (CEST), 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tokyogirl79. Meets WP:ENTERTAINER, connected to multiple notable groups. Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely not an A7 then? 2 editors insisted that it was, and we even had a little revert war over it! It was ultimatley agreed to take this to AfD, hence here we are. Adam9007 (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Even in the version first tagged, the article claimed the subject was key to finding two entertainment groups with Wikipedia articles. Should have been a PROD or XFD from the start, and reverting someone obviously not the creator's removal of the tag should never have happened. Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect. If there's no coverage there's no coverage. That he is a member of other groups apparently deemed notable doesn't change that. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the coverage in the article: besides the Billboard links, which only prove things about the group(s) he's in, there are only two things that could possibly be called reliable, secondary sources. InStyle is probably reliable, but this is nothing but a page with ads which is supposed to indicate his sister writes for the publication--it's not a secondary source, in that respect, that proves that her writing for this publication is important enough to be noticed. Plus, it's not about him. And this, from HuffPo, doesn't even mention him--it's two paragraphs on NSP. A redirect is the appropriate decision here. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: As I said on the talk page, I've (what I'd like to say is) thoroughly bolstered the article with additional information, as well as providing sources and much-needed organization. I've found all the information I can find with sources that are credible. Everything else is questionable. My point is that this is pretty much as lengthy as the article will become, I feel. Information is getting sparse. If the consensus is that it's still eligible for deletion, I think it should just be deleted. Thoughts? — snoɯʎuoɥʇuɐ 14:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep as per it can currently be improved with currently available citations. Avidan and the Game Grumps just appeared on televised news, and they are doing a tour of live on-stage versions of their show, which is sure to get some published reviews. If article is not significantly improved in another two months time I would support a redirect. --Ifrit (Talk) 18:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - as pointed out by Tokyogirl79, there's no question that as an individual he theoretically meets the threshold of WP:ENTERTAINER, the limiting factor here is the extant and quality of the sources that provide coverage of him. A large amount of the existing references in the article do not meet the threshold of being reliable sources, or are primary sources. Of those that do meet the threshold of being a reliable third-party source, most only mention Avidan himself in passing, providing only a trivial mentions. Still, there are a handful of good sources that do provide adequate coverage, which pushes the article to the "keep" side. That said, I believe that more of the questionably sourced content still needs to be removed to meet WP:BLP concerns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Upon closer inspection of using YouTube videos as references, using Facebook as a reference, and using iTunes and vendors as references, I think most of the sources that many dub unreliable are subject to interpretation. The Game Grumps videos in which Avidan describes his college career and past are published by a verified and reliable platform, with no reason to doubt authenticity (the Mondo Media series links sing the same song, as they clearly indicate Avidan's involvement in the series, as well as the series' existence). The iTunes, CDBaby, and Myspace pages all signify the title of an album, song, or band, as well as members of the band, while being reliable establishments (similar to that of Billboard, widely-accepted as a source for verifying artists). Some of said sources even allow you to stream audio, further proof of the claim's legitimacy, and is stated as being reliable by Wikipedia. Facebook, though I do admit it can be risky, can be trustworthy. The link in which the band provides and image and a claim of working on an upcoming album is legitimate and believable. I see no reason to doubt its reliability. Let me list the requirements: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. All of these are true. These factors also apply to the YouTube links, as well as the vendor links. Why would Avidan have any reason to lie about his past on a well-established platform? No exceptional claims, no claims about third parties, all events are described by Avidan and about Avidan, I see no reason to doubt his information, and this article does not rely solely on these links. Only in certain instances when necessary. I just don't see why these sources are being deemed entirely unusable. This comment's sole purpose, along with arguing the necessity of this article, is to encourage the usage of YouTube links in which Avidan describes his life, as information has been removed after users have claimed that these links aren't notable. — snoɯʎuoɥʇuɐ 04:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The level of sourcing (even when discounting primary sources) is far above and beyond the minimum required to demonstrate that the subject meets our notability requirements. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Through NSP and Starbomb, meets at least criteria 6 of WP:MUSICBIO ("is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles"). This is in addition to his role in Game Grumps, plus a number of other smaller-scale collaborations and appearances. The article and sourcing have been much improved since this was nominated. the wub "?!"  23:11, 19 June 2016 (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.