Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friendlyjordies


 * 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. Consensus clearly to keep the article, but note that a number of editors are concerned about the quality of the current writeup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Friendlyjordies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm definitely not sure if this is notable enough for an article. Most of the references seem to be links to his own YouTube videos and as such, looks more like an promotional/advertisement rather than something that is of encyclopedic value. Edit: the fact that the great majority of the article is dedicated to his supposed "controversies" is also a major red flag in my view. Geelongite (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * opposed to deletion. I live in Australia (though from the name i would guess does to) and follow politics quite closely, this youtuber definitely well know even by people who are not fans. The article probably needs a bit of improvement but not deletion. Why is a focus on controversies a red flag? Irtapil (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going to add some references, but i had a look and there's already references from lots of outside sources, even international sources like [the BBC]. Irtapil (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article's quality is poor at present but notability exists. Shanks' content has been covered by multiple RS on several occasions. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  13:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep significant media coverage of him and his impact by multiple reliable sources with the Crikey article giving a comprehensive overview. -- Paul foord (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep (otherwise will not oppose deletion) He is fairly notable now, however despite the fact I've made the point that the "Controversies" section is the bulk of the article, the bigger problem is the over-reliance on his self-published sources (primary youtube channel). This is part of why I put the "overly detailed" tag in that section of the article. I've since marked all of his videos (and the instagram post source) as self-published to raise the awareness of it outweighing the ratio on secondary sources. -- Tytrox (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per WP:NOTCLEANUP. With reliable sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 3 September 2020 (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.