Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Griffpatch


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Griffpatch

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

For a user on a website that's not really that popular, I don't think Griffpatch fits the topic for a Wikipedia article. Even though he's the most followed user on Scratch, he doesn't seem to be notable enough. I searched for him and he only appears on 1 news website which is in French and the news article only talks about how to play Paper Minecraft. https://astucejeuxps4.com/quest-ce-que-paper-minecraft-guides-de-jeu-professionnels/ However, Griffpatch is mentioned in a few books: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Griffpatch%22+-wikipedia

The refs in the article aren't reliable as well, as most of them are taken from Google search, Twitter, Fandom.com, and ScratchStats. Searching up "Griffpatch" using search only shows his Scratch account and Youtube account. Searching down more just seemed to show more user-generated stuff. I'll admit that Griffpatch is a really epic Scratcher, but he doesn't really seem notable enough to be a Wikipedia article. But what do you guys think? 🦁⋆JennilyW♡🦌 (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🦁⋆JennilyW♡🦌 (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I also looked at the logs and the logs show that this page has been deleted in the past for not having a credible claim of significance. 🦁⋆JennilyW♡🦌 (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even without referencing the page being deleted before, it reads more like a promotion than anything else. The books that he's mentioned in don't extensively cover him; the two that I found didn't mention much outside of his contributions to and skill with Scratch.  🎜Oktavia Miki🎝 talk 01:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost a cut and dry delete, there are no sources at all. The one source in French can be found in Gnews. Google goes straight to the youtube channel and one MIT site where he posts projects. Long way off from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete While his YouTube videos get a decent amount of views, few news sources seemed to have picked up on him, leaving the page failing GNG for now. (and thanks for the quick flashback to my childhood!) TheManInTheBlackHat   (Talk)  03:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to use the Low Tier God standard for streamer fame in that he is a good example of someone meeting WP:GNG. This streamer does not even match that and as such it should be deleted Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Personally I would never consider him a streamer. I'm pretty sure he's only done 2-3 streams on YouTube and I don't think he does them these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utter Donkey (talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw someone else called this "user-generated stuff", I'm not entirely sure what they mean by that but isn't most content in the internet generated by users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utter Donkey (talk • contribs)
 * Keep But his projects have been embedded in many websites outside of scratch, and so surely that must make him notable enough. Also, scratch stats is an accurate source since it pulls data directly from the scratch API and Twitter was only a source for the fact he lived in York, England, and the only time a fandom page was referenced, another page was also referenced. No references are from Google searches as someone else claimed. This probably means nothing, but there is a definition of him in the urban dictionary and a subredit dedicated to him. As I say this probably means nothing but it might help argue that he's more notable and well-known. I don't really understand how him not appearing on any news sites means anything. There are many Wikipedia articles about things never mentioned on a news site. When googling "who is griffpatch?", the following pages appeared;
 * https://latestnews.fresherslive.com/articles/griffpatch-face-reveal-name-age-net-worth-and-more-383050
 * https://alexaanswers.amazon.com/question/5HJKekajosnsYabp71iqzk
 * https://astonishingscratchers.miraheze.org/wiki/Griffpatch
 * https://www.interviewarea.com/frequently-asked-questions/who-is-griffpatch-scratch
 * https://techshift.net/who-is-griffpatch-scratch/
 * https://www.create-learn.us/blog/griffpatch-scratch/
 * It looks like you've posted examples of user-generated content (UGC). This kind of content is anything that is created by users of a website. Examples include social media posts, free blogs, and forum threads. Wikipedia considers this kind of content unreliable, and therefore should not be used as a source. TheManInTheBlackHat   (Talk)  19:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that link. Would Twitter still be a reliable source though since the information being referenced was provided to Twitter by the subject of the article? Just to clarify, the links I posted above were just trying to show that griffpatch is significant. JennilyW, you said "for a use on a site that's not very popular". I'm not quite sure how it's not popular since it has its own Wikipedia page and has over 90 million users according to its Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utter Donkey (talk • contribs) 22:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Scratch has over 90 million users, but it's not popular enough for any of its users to gain notability outside of Scratch. 🦁⋆JennilyW♡🦌 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Well it surely must be since he is mentioned in the articles I have linked previously. (I know because they are user-generated, they cannot be used as references or sources, but I'm simply using them to help my argument.) Also, doesn't the fact that people have already tried to create Wikipedia articles about him also show he has some notability? I'm sure many people have tried to find him on Wikipedia and a small amount of those people, maybe even only 1 or 2, have tried to make a Wikipedia page about him. If a decent amount of people are trying to find a Wikipedia article, does that not make them notable enough to have one? (this is purley speculation, please correct me if I'm wrong). Personally, I think a platform with 90 million users is popular enough but my opinion is not the only one that matters. He is also known outside of scratch though, for example his games have been shared outside of scratch to many external websites and he's gained a decent amount of subscribers on YouTube and members of his discord server. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utter Donkey (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if he had a page on Wikipeida before, they were still deleted. If those old articles were deleted, then that means that he doesn't have enough notability. Wikipedia articles have guidelines in order for them to actually be a article and not to get deleted. If Griffpatch is notable, but doesn't meet the guidelines for a Wikipeida article, then he shouldn't be a such topic for an article. And even if he is known outside Scratch, Griffpatch still needs to follow the notability guideline. For more info check Notability. 🦁⋆JennilyW♡🦌 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Apart from news sites, what sources are not user-generated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utter Donkey (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Utter Donkey You can see a list of reliable and non-user-generated sources at WP:GREL, but I doubt they have anything related to Griffpatch there. Remember to read the Legend first. 🦁⋆JennilyW♡🦌 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2023 (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.