Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaymes Thorp


 * 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. Sr13 05:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaymes Thorp

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Conflict of interest, and non-notable You-Tuber. De facto advertising because Wikipedia article implies notability.--Absurdist 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Absurdist 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom; unref'd article; blatant conflict of interest by . Shalom Hello 16:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The COI results in an article that is entirely original research. Vanity...tsk..tsk. the_undertow talk  18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete another NN youtube "celeb" Corpx 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not backed up by references; fails WP:ATT. -- Charlene 18:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy db-bio. That was my first tag on the article, and I still think it is appropriate for all the reasons cited.  Being recognized on the street is not sufficient notability even if true, but it is only self-reported by the conflicted subject of the article. Hu 19:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Speedy delete is for articles that do not even attempt to assert notability. The following is an assertion (however weak) of notability and, if true, provides at least one source from which it might be possible to craft a decent article on this subject: "'Thorp's fame has grown outside the YouTube community thanks to the recognition he has recieved from various television and magazine media. The first publication to print articles about 'Jaymes Thorp' was Romsey Advertiser.[citation needed] On April 19th, 2007, they published an article about Jaymes Thorp and his videos.'" (emphasis mine).  Admitedly, this is not phrased as a properly cited source, is only one published incident and not the "multiple non-trivial" that the notability guidelines require, and, given the limited info given at this point in time is not verifiable; but it's a starting point.  Let's wait a few days, tell the article creator what's wrong with his article, and give him or her a chance to remedy the situation. 206.246.160.29 19:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not. Let's not belabor the obvious.  The user has a conflict of interest and has been actively editing the article, for no substantive improvement of content other than cosmetic modifications and self-assertions with no sources, despite guidance and warnings.  For example, the creator removed the speedy deletion tag, despite clear instructions in the tag not to do so.  Then the creator was warned, but went ahead and a little later removed the tag again.  I predict the outcome will be deletion.  However, I have no problem letting time take its course for those who insist on form over substance.  I respect the mechanisms even when I think the case is so obvious that the mechanisms are a waste of everyone's time involved, including the article writer, and even when the creator doesn't respect process. Hu 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. That reference was added after db-bio tag, which may save it from speedy deletion. The reference, however, does not add up to substantial coverage of the subject.--Absurdist 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - COI, OR, advertising, notability...should I continue? — Travis talk  19:50, 16 July 2007 (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.