Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GradeAUnderA


 * 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. The article's subject is found to not meet the requirements of WP:GNG and is therefore not suitable for inclusion, at this time &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

GradeAUnderA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

YouTube personality WP:BLP article with no reliable secondary sources found. Tgeairn (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete All the sources that are on the page seem to be primary sources, especially a link to his Patreon (really, free advertising?). Not seeing anything outside these sources to show notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I cleaned up the article and added some sources I could find. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I myself am a fan of his YouTube videos but this article reads terribly, and his name just isn't out in the open - he's only known to the Internet community, for now this is his only claim to fame 172.56.20.240 (talk)
 * Keep Weak Keep I further cleaned up the article and added information from a new interview. At this point I think this meets notability standards. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh and maybe there should be a revote since this doesn't resemble anything like what the article used to be like. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for review of new sources added to the article. North America1000 12:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. He has over a million YouTube subs, and he is very well known on the internet besides YouTube, such as on Reddit. 24.224.195.254 (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - At this point, following the work of many, the article has 14 references. None of these individually or in combination meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT.  Specifically: 1) Twitch is self-published content, 2) livecounts is routine reporting (at best, and the ref in the article is broken), 3) tubefilter is closest but does not meet either of WEBCRIT, 4) reddit AMA is not independent of the subject, 5) self-published, 6) upvotes on reddit are not notability, 7) passing quote, 8) article is not about the subject, 9) ???, 10) being nominated in a reddit contest is not notability, 11) about a debate, not about the subject, 12) about a debate, not about the subject, 13) statistical reporting does not confer notability, 14) Yes, another channel exists. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even after a valiant cleanup, the article's subject does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) I verified the source review above, and the secondary sources listed (save for the Daily Dot) either do not discuss the subject in any depth or are unreliable for statements of fact. czar  23:27, 26 February 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.