Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DaxFlame 2


 * 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 discounting the Single-purpose accounts. Jaranda wat's sup 21:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

DaxFlame
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A former AfD has taken place, and I originally deleted the article. After further scrutiny, I've decided to relist the article because although the article may have other concerns, it is cited with sources. This AfD is to confirm that this article is legitimate (or not) and to confirm consensus. Sr13 07:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Another youtube celebrity, except this kid doesnt have any notable media mentions anywhere.  Corpx 07:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the subject is cited in The Globe and Mail (transcluded into NewsCloud ref). Sr13 08:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I still dont think that qualifies as "significant coverage" Corpx 16:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - he appears to be only noted in reliable sources for being a pop-culture possible fraud. This is not encyclopedic content.  --Haemo 08:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you post a link to a Wikipedia policy or guideline that proves this article is not encyclopedic content. (What criteria should be reached?) — Slaapwel 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe it was good that I relisted; this AfD was because of a plea on why it was deleted in the first place. Sr13 08:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not the YouTube usernames directory. (Note: upgraded to speedy delete because the first AfD was so recent and had clear consensus. The proper place to contest the AfD would be WP:DRV.) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus was made before the sources were added. The sources were added during the AfD, so I figured that a re-run would be best (rather than DRV). This is a clarification (i.e. to show that even with the sources, it is still not credible for the encyclopedia). Sr13 16:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the WP:NOT argument applies here. The article is not a listing. Can you post a link to a Wikipedia policy or guideline that proves this article is not encyclopedic content. (What criteria should be reached?) — Slaapwel 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As I mentioned on the previous Afd page: reliable sources have been added to the article. (Newscloud.com/globeandmail.com + he was featured on G4tv). So the original reason to nominate the article for deletion (i.e. no reliable sources, not notable) has been refuted in my opinion. — Slaapwel 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * G4tv is not a notable media site - It's a compliation of videos site. Newscloud is a valid media mention, but WP:BIO says "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable" Corpx 19:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all I think you should be using this guideline: WP:WEB, since it's web content. Concerning the G4tv reference: G4tv is not a website but a television channel. The link provided in the article is just to prove the statement that he was on that particular episode of Attack of the Show! on G4tv. — Slaapwel 19:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Get rid of him - 69.248.175.25 04:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to be clear, so far no valid reason has been given to delete this article. At least that's how I perceive it, correct me if I'm wrong. Just claiming that it's unencyclopedic is vague and not valid (see WP:UNENCYC). — Slaapwel 11:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Slaapwel -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Daxflame is a phenomenon! He is at the cutting edge of Web 2.0 Superruss 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this article - some of the information WAS opinionated. Users like myself are revising the page to format it in a completely factual and no "rumor" format of writing. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oates151 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 12 July 2007 — Oates151 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I say "keep" and here's why: I edit a feature that keeps track of the most popular clips on the web and Dax, LisaNova, Smosh, and others have become a sub-class of celebrity online. I can't speak to their talent since I rarely enjoy anything they do, but purging them from Wikipedia risks making the site look behind the times. Kphipps3000 14:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest delete. Absolutely unencyclopedic, useless, pointless article. -- Ekjon Lok 14:23, 13 July 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.