Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Middleton


 * 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. clear consensus. "What's the harm if kept" isn't an accepted argument here.  DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Middleton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG and NBIO with only reliable source being the BBC article.  Konveyor   Belt   22:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 March 201reser 5 (UTC)


 * Keep Don't know what GNG/NBIO are, but what is the harm if this article is preserved? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ottawahitech, the acronyms refer to Wikipedia's General notability guideline and Notability (people). I suggest you read them carefully. They are the basis on which it will be decided whether the subject meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. You might also want to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. "What is the harm?" is one of them. Voceditenore (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In real life I know not to drive on the wrong side of the street without having to read reams text. Your miles may vary, but in my book any policies/guidelines that take weeks to fully understand cannot be effectively enforced.
 * Also, just because someone does not know all the acronyms used at Wikipeida by heart does not make them less worthy of an opinion. Just my $.02Ottawahitech (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll admit, it takes some time to learn the rules/policies of the website, and I typically recommend that editors/nominators link to them in their comments so people can read up on what they're trying to say, but that being said, you not knowing them isn't really a good rationale or defense for your stance either. That's like threatening to sue someone, and when they ask you what law they broke, and you saying "Well, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't typically need to be in my daily life." I don't mean to be mean here, but you're they one who made the initial statement without the prior knowledge here... Sergecross73   msg me  13:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While other commenters have provided more compelling deletion reasons, I am inclined to reprimand User:Konveyor Belt for pulling WP:JUSTAPOLICY and hope he does better next time. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: not notable. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 19:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete There is an absence of significant, in-depth biographical coverage in reliable sources. The current source is a three-sentence item in the BBC local news for Northampton. (Middleton comes from there.) The claim to have won a Kids' Choice Award is spurious and I have removed it from the article. The game he makes his own YouTube videos about, Minecraft, was nominated 3 times, but so far has not won, and in any case, the notability of the game does not confer notability on a person who makes videos about it. There is also an interview in The Big Issue here and a brief mention of his videos in an article about the game itself and several others who make videos about it on Tech Times here + some press-released based notices about his signing a deal with Maker Studios, a company which produces YouTube videos. Not enough for a stand-alone article in my view. What little verifiable information about him is available can be merged into Minecraft. Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lake of notability. Agree with suggestion to merge a brief mention into Minecraft. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  13:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge as suggested above. The harm is that people will begin to treat Wikipedia as a web-host for putting everybody and everything trivial they know on our servers. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete There is more harm than good being done here. This will set a dangerous president. Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Coming via WT:VG is my quick addition of sources I see and absence of a vote. It has to be said though, that I have not heard of this person before in my personal YouTube experience. from The Guardian regarding his standalone app. And is TubeFilter still considered unreliable? Their stats puts Middleton in 4th among gaming channels one time.   野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 08:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Agree with others saying delete. DangerousJXD (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Possibly reliable sources offering significant coverage of him: The Guardian, StreamDaily, Common Sense Media, TubeFilter. Tezero (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldnt call the CSM one significant. It's a few sentences on a top ten list. It's literally 1/10th of an article about him ... Sergecross73   msg me  22:50, 28 March 2015 (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.