Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Douglass


 * 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. I'm sorry nyttend, you make an interesting argument but there's no consensus for that view unless WP:BLP1E is an issue and it's not in this case. Other that that it appears that the consensus is that the coverage on the subject passes but just barely. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Jack Douglass

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Lacks notability. The only secondary source is a piece in the student newspaper; I have not been able to find any kind of significant coverage. bonadea contributions talk 08:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment For some reason I don't quite understand, I thought this article had been PROD-deleted and recreated with the old PROD tag still in place. It was actually an uncontested (if malformed) PROD on this incarnation of the article, so this AfD didn't need to be created... but it's probably best to let it run its course now. --bonadea contributions talk 08:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 09:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 09:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Absolutely no independent and reliable sources about him. The ref from his college paper doesn't exactly count. Except for a few sentences, article is about his YouTube channel and not him. Bgwhite (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  01:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient sources to indicate notability. This has been PRODed, AfDed, and relisted, without anyone seriously trying to save it - put it out of its misery. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Jack and his stuff has been featured on Huffington Post, adweek, collegehumor among others. That seems notable to me. Soulboost (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. HuffPost I'll admit is fairly notable - but the coverage was scant. The About.com article is actually the best article of the ones I see there - the others aren't really good sources of info ABOUT Jack Douglass (though they repost the material he produces). The collegehumor article is simply a post of a video, without comment. The adweek is a short comment along with a post of a video. Notability? I'm not sure if about.com is really RS. I'd really like to see another decent source along the lines of the about.com article.Marikafragen (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. There's at least one newspaper article that's all about him: The Washington Times. Cashing in big on viral videos; Ad parody has AU student laughing all way to the bank.(D.C. AREA). November 11, 2009. Online via HighBeam . It's about 570 words. Despite this, I'm still not sure that it adds enough to lift him over the notability bar. —S MALL  JIM   20:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Between the Washington Times article (interesting, the bit about him making $14,000 in one year because of the video) and about.com (accepted because it's by a paid employee), as well as the blurb in the Huffinton Post, I think the article meets the GNG. Also, The Eagle mentions something on CNN, but I haven't found it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete Interestingly, someone who added a lot of information to the article wrote 'JACK IS A NERD' on the article. Lacks notability User Talk:W.D. 19:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - meets GNG via Washington Post, about.com, and Huffington articles. "Education" and "Personal" sections need to go away as unencyclopedic.  Collaborations should go as unsourced.   78.26  (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No sustained coverage; it's all recent newspapers or worse. Come back when you can show evidence of coverage in sources that are more permanent or in news coverage years removed from these ones.  Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's now how things work. They gave him coverage, so he is notable.  Notability is not temporary.   D r e a m Focus  23:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note do you not see the articles from 2009 and 2010? I need to ask you that question. Also why does an article need to have references years removed from the article's date of creation? I guess articles like this, this, and this even though I get disgust from it, who all have most if not all of their referencess from 2012, should just be made in 2014 or even 2015?
 * Very Weak Keep - Due to the WP/Huff articles, it can probably pass muster--but a large chunk of the article needs to be either entirely removed and/or rewritten to proper encyclopedic standards or else I would vote to delete. DietFoodstamp (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, good amount of secondary source coverage from multiple different references. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - borderline case, but there's just about enough coverage from reliable sources to pass the notability test. (I should note that those referring to the Washington Post above are mistaken - the source in the article is the Washington Times, which is less reliable, but probably still good enough for these purposes.) Robofish (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The Washington Times covers him in detail. Millions of people watch this guy's stuff, they reporting that, so he passes WP:ENTERTAINER.   D r e a m Focus  23:30, 7 June 2012 (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.