Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon CJ Graham


 * 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   no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Jon CJ Graham

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No apparent notability KenWalker | Talk 01:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete A blogger who makes movies with(in) Halo 3. As surprising as it may seem, this doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. B figura  (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He is very well known, and is one of the most popular machinima directors out there. Perez Hilton is a blogger as well, but he hasn't done anything notable other than ask Carrie Prejean a controversal question, yet he has a Wikipedia article. He is a very well known figure, and has incredible noriety. That falls well within WP:BIO. The Edit Corrector (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't really a strong argument. The question at hand is: are there multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial way? If there are, I haven't found them. Popularity on youtube isn't the same as notability. -- B figura  (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You say popularity on YouTube doesn't count, yet Fred is popular on Youtube as well, and has a Wikipedia article, but as you say, that doesn't count, so I'll use others. He is well known in the machinima community, which at this point is pretty massive. He has been featured at PAX, and has even been noted several times by Machinima.com, is a fan favorite, and has been given credit by several other machinima groups, including Rooster Teeth, which is arguably the most famous machinima group out right now. The Edit Corrector (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He is nowhere near as famous as some of his die hard fans think he is, and not deserving of a wikipedia article. Machinima community isn't "massive" at all, it is a niche and Jon doesn't deserve his own wiki page, rather be part of the machinima page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.171.89 (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't coming from a die-hard fan, this is coming from someone who noticed his notability, and feels he deserves one. And, I'm sorry my friend, but you are sadly mistaken, the Machinima community isn't a "niche," it is a very large community. Just take a look at PAX, and how many machinimators there are there. The Edit Corrector (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But there's still no proof of notability by reliable sources (at least not that I've seen). -- B figura  (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You must forgive me, Bfigura, but I've stated many things on how he is reliable, yet you continue to say he isn't. In your eyes, I must be missing something. Could you please be more specific? The Edit Corrector (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Although first I'd say that the issue isn't whether the guy is reliable, but whether the sources discussing him are reliable. My issue is that none of the sources you mention seem to fit our definition of reliable sources, as defined here. Forums, self-published materials, youtube videos/stats, blogs, etc, generally don't meet our definition of reliable sourcing.  If after looking over the page on sourcing, you find material that you think fits the bill, go ahead and update the article with it and let us know here. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, another source I'd like to mention is Bungie. They have give cudous (forgive my poor spelling) to him, even posting a link on their website to one of his videos. Another is halobabies, which is a Halo news site, and have interviewed and mentioned him quite a few times. However, if that is not enough, please say so. I will address it as best I can. The Edit Corrector (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I added his halobabies interview, the Bungie link to his video, and links to his blog. The Edit Corrector (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The way things are going, it looks like we're gonna keep the article. Unless someone can come up with a reason for deletion. The Edit Corrector (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't quite say that: none of what you've added really demonstrates notability, or in any passes WP:BIO. -- B figura (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * I fail to see how. Halobabies is a popular news source for hardcore Haloteirs, and just a good news source that many people check into often for Halo info in general.PAX is a big gamer community, and if your featured there, you must be well known. Has been acknowledged by Bungie, and has been interviewed by SodaGod from Machinima.com. So if you haven't been interviewed by CNN your ineligible for a Wikipedia article? The Edit Corrector (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe I can help out a bit in this debate. What this article really needs is a good clean up and the fact still remains that Jon has contributed to the machinima community in a big way. That's how he is notable. So I say keep it, but clean it up a bit.--71.91.175.99 (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see no evidence that the burden of WP:RS has been met to indicate how the subject passes WP:BIO. -- Kinu t /c  23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, first off, Graham does meet WP:BIO on the grounds that he has made substantial ground in his machinimating. Not to mention the sources added ARE reliable for reasons stated above, and he clearly meets WP:BIO. As for cleaning up the article, I'm all for that, as you said, he has contributed in a big way. The Edit Corrector (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated multiple times, reliable sources are not forums, blogs, YouTube, etc. They are, well, what is listed at WP:RS. And which aspect of WP:BIO does the subject meet that can be backed up by reliable sources? -- Kinu t /c  02:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sources are two blogs and a site that I chose not to bypass the malware warning for.  I couldn't find any published information on this person with my own search.  'He has made substantial ground in his machinimating' is not a claim to notability in itself.  I have made substantial ground in my study of the guitar... but I ain't notable.  I have no problem with keeping the article if any independent, reliable sources that confirm the information in the article appear, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The site that you didn't bypass due to a Malware Warning is a Halo news site that is a one of the top sites out there for Halo. And it's not a claim, take a look for yourself in the machinima world. Machinima.com, machinima sites, he's gotten quite a name for himself. The Edit Corrector (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources that are apparently given show reliability. Stated with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, we see that yes there are other wikipedia pages that probably have way less merit than this page does. The fact of the matter is, he has thousands of fans. Because of Jon CJ Graham's contribution to the Machinima project and because of the fact that his Machinimas remain to be the highest and most viewed videos, ought to be merit enough. Just because for right now he doesn't have any "high standard reliable" sources means nothing. His hard work and status as a Machinima maker ought to qualify him to have a wikipedia page. Obviously from what has been stated in this in this discussion(mostly from the above), calling his fans "die-hard" basically just opens the door to the fact that you are biased against him. Sometimes on Wikipedia, you guys confuse notability with what you actually care about. A great link for you is this, WP:INSPECTOR I believe helps to merit this articles existence. It needs obviously clean up and is also obviously very incomplete. Thanks, --H*bad (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But the issue here isn't that I think the page is incomplete or missing sources (which is what INSPECTOR refers to), it's that despite looking, I can't find them (and Edit Corrector hasn't been able to as well). While I can't prove a negative, it would seem to be that we can't find them because they aren't there. Thousands of fans don't confer notability, especially given the lack of reliable sources. At that point, all this boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. -- B figura  (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am more willing to trust the veracity of a guideline like WP:RS more so than an essay such as WP:INSPECTOR. You say yourself that there are other [articles] that probably have way less merit... the purpose of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't to justify the existence of this article in comparison, but to scrutinize the existence of those others to see if those in fact belong. So what if he has "thousands of fans"? I'm a hard worker and I have thousands of fans, but I don't deserve an article, because there is nothing in the way of reliable information out there about me. You state that he doesn't have any "high standard reliable" sources means nothing... indeed, it is everything, because those reliable sources are needed for verifiability, which is policy. Indeed, the essay to which you link states: Rather than trashing it, go out and find sources. People have tried, and they were not found. And trust me, there is no bias here, as I don't care one way or the other about the topic... the only bias is against articles that have no sources that can be found to support any of the claimed assertions of notability. The reason it is incomplete is because the sources aren't out there yet. Could they be out there in the future? Perhaps, but they are not now. Even as the sum total of human knowlege, it is still an encyclopedia. -- Kinu t /c  05:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ENTERTAINER

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.

While the sources found may not be CNN or MSNBC, he is an entertainer, and falls in the WP:BIO in the imboldened statement. You continuinly say that fans don't matter, yet that's exactly how he falls in WP:BIO. Fred fell in this way, so does Graham. The Edit Corrector (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the assertion of significant "cult" following needs to be backed up. In the article on Fred, there is sourced information from the Sydney Morning Herald, Wall Street Journal, The Independent, and Business Week. Enough said. -- Kinu t /c  03:52, 15 October 2009 (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.