Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Miller (entertainer)


 * 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 and Salt. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

George Miller (entertainer)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was just recently deleted as Filthy Frank (see Articles for deletion/Filthy Frank). All of the sources here were known at the last AfD, which was closed as delete due in part to almost all of the coverage being brief mentions in connection to Harlem Shake (meme) (where he is already mentioned). CSD was declined because of the content is not sufficiently identical (I would respectfully disagree, but that's not so relevant now). Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:NOPAGE applies with regard to Harlem Shake. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 00:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 00:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and salt under all plausible names - David Gerard (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve: I find that this article requires further citations rather than a speedy deletion. While the "meme" he spawned amounts for much of his newsworthy coverage, his YouTube statistics, musical endeavors, and collaborative efforts with other online personalities all come together in a way that I believe establishes notability. I would certainly agree, however, that further sourcing would be prudent. – Matthew  - (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree completely. –SirCommoner2  - 20:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (or merge to Harlem Shake) – per nom and previous arguments discussed in the last AFD. The Harlem Shake is trivial while the rest of the sources are mainly primary, having a big "subscriber count" or collaborating with other "famous YouTubers" doesn't mean the subject inherently passes WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and his musical career needs to be notable by WP:MUSBIO, which frankly [again haha] he doesn't seem to pass.  Adog 104  Talk to me 14:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Superb pun. – Matthew  - (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, no hard feelings.  Adog 104  Talk to me 01:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree, he has stated on several occasions that he hated the Harlem shake trend, and does not consider it an achievement. He's done many other notable things than this. Redirecting a page, that could be dedicated to a renowned YouTuber, to a two-week trend simply because "it's the most popular thing he's done" just isn't a solid argument. ☞ Rim < Talk 01:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the media has quite assumed that the Harlem Shake was notable for Frank, and mostly that's all hes notable for unfortunately. We need sources to back up that hes renowned or has done other notable things, just saying things about him doesn't establish notability. Also per Rhododendrites comments below.  Adog 104  Talk to me 01:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article is different in a number of ways from the deleted "Filthy Frank" page, so I don't believe the previous deletion discussion can entirely apply to this article. The current article is written in a much better manner, the only issue is lacking a few citations, and that's mainly because he prefers to keep his personal life hidden, instead having most of the fame being attributed to his fictional alias. The individual himself does fall into the requirements of WP:BIO, as he has quite large cult following, and has influenced modern pop culture more-so than the average YouTuber. It would be foolish to delete this article, he will just become more notable and a discussion about having the article will arise in a year. ☞ Rim < Talk 01:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on sources, and that's why the article was previously deleted. Sources about his alter ego count, so if you know of sources to show notability (not followers, subscribers, views, etc. but e.g. articles about him in newspapers, magazines, high-quality websites, etc.) you should link them here, because it's those that establish WP:BIO. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable internet personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete and ignore the bureaucrat that rejected it. Keep arguments and article sources are exactly the same bad ones as last AFD. Waste of time.--JacktheHarry (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt This is going to become sock fodder otherwise so lets kill it quickly, lock it down, and be done with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Shouldn't be speedy deleted because the page doesn't fall under CSD G4. Should be kept though due to notability under the Entertainers requirements of WP:BIO. Also the individual that the page is about has a substantial online following. --ColouredFrames (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not speedy deletion. Some people are saying it should've been speedy deleted, but it's not the basis for this nomination. The problem is notability. He was determined very recently to fail notability criteria. If you think something has changed, I would invite you to link to the significant coverage in reliable sources on which notability is based (coverage not about the Harlem Shake). Followers, subscribers, etc. do not contribute to notability, although they do indicate that such coverage does exist. PS: Please do not remove AfD templates from articles. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is such spam. Get rid of it! Per nomination. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: As the creator of the page, I'd like to ask why you find it to be spam. I think it's a viable topic, as silly and outrageous that the individual's persona may be; what the page needs, as opposed to outright removal, is further sourcing. — Matthew  - (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep George Miller has 300+ million views on YouTube. Think about that number, then consider if he actually might be a notable person. This isn't about whether or not you personally are a fan of him, or if you think he's too "vulgar" or "cancerous." This is about whether this man is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, which I believe he is. I vote keep. Clbsfn (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the straw men there, notability isn't explicitly not based on things like views, google hits, subscribers, traffic, etc. It's the extent to which a subject received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (not self-published sources, not sources connected to the subject or a collaborator, not lists/charts/figures, not brief mentions in articles about other things, etc.). Those that have been provided thus far don't meet that criteria, but I imagine most people are open to changing their minds if you're aware of such coverage that hasn't been linked yet. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I have previously attempted to locate reliable sources to create this article myself, and after even more searching, there is nothing. I'd just like to say to all of this guy's fans, who are inevitably reading/contributing to this discussion: this guy has a fan base; a cult following. Wikipedia's guidelines for including an article about a person state that reliable sources about the person must be found to back up information in the article. This is an objective guideline and one of the foundations upon which Wikipedia sits. Unfortunately, Joji rarely attracts media sources, and that means an article about him should not be created. It's nothing to do with anyone disrespecting his content or personality. It's not about the fact that he isn't notable, in the dictionary sense of the word. It is simple objective fact that Wikipedia's purpose is to bring together reliable information from across all media into one place. You cannot do that without the media existing in the first place. -- Pingumeister(talk) 21:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt With the level of detail in the article about things like jojivlogs and the breakdancing video, it's evident to me that this is more of a fan labor than anything else. It's put together very well, compared to the last one, but the content is just as void of legitimate sources and evidence of notability. I'm convinced that there's a possibility that an article about him will keep getting remade every time someone thinks they've found something new about him that'll just bring everything together, so I would agree that this and FilthyFrank should be salted. Bring back jojivlogs Tpdwkouaa (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt; strictly a vanity page and unreliably sourced. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt all of its redirects. Was any source provided in either AFD? BigGuy88 (talk) 22:10, 30 September 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.