Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Harchick (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Essentially, only one editor argued for keeping and nobody agreed with them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Harchick
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Comment The first nomination was over ten years ago in 2006. The 2nd nomination has been placed in 2017, so much has happened since then. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable Youtuber. Basically the same as Articles for deletion/Jonathan Harchick in 2006.  Recently recreated, with WP:Reference bombing.  I would ask the author to name the 2-3 best sources that demonstrate notability.   SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The appropriate place to cover this person is http://youtubecelebs.wikia.com/wiki/Jonathan_Harchick  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep; on the contrary, the 2006 discussion is absolutely irrelevant. Much has happend since then, and though most references cite YouTube, and though many projects take place there, I believe the subject is far more than a simple YouTuber. Counting to 100,000 (with proof) and being one of three people in history to do so is extremely notable. Not only that but he has uploaded the longest videos on YouTube, numerous times. Look it up and he's the first one to pop up. It's not easy and takes much rendering. Harchick has been featured on numerous news outlets for his achievements and I believe if someone were to come across one of his many projects, this'd be a beneficial and efficient "hub" that lists much of his doings nicely. The "wikia" that has been provided by SmokeyJoe is understandably added but not a good place to detail Harchick's deeds. It's very unreliable, unsourced, and poorly made. Notice how one out of the five bullets lists his "biggest fan", which is untrue, opinionated, and likely vandalism. In the past, Harchick was denied because, while he'd done some arguably impressive things with his career, he hadn't done anything significant. As of 2017 (just take a look at what has been in his current article:) he's done quite a bit. I say if Jonathan Mann meets the requirements for a Wikipedia article (and notice Mann also appears in the Harchick article), then Harchick himself should be denoted a Wikipedia detailing the highlights of his notable acts. I know "not just anyone can have a Wikipedia article", which has disputed for many people across the years, but I took this in to account and finally feel as if Harchick has done enough. He meets the guidelines, criteria, and policies of Wikipedia. While exceptions are made and in some cases, it's a stretch I also believe the following: it's unnecessary to deny Wikipedia of potential information. There's no harm done in keeping this article and its information around. All it's doing is adding to the knowledge contributed within Wikipedia's database, and expanding the topics it covers. Take someone on Instagram, a photographer perhaps, with 100,000 followers and write them up a Wikipedia — that is absolutely not okay. I understand that this doesn't and shouldn't occur. This scenario is not what's occuring. Harchick has done notable acts over the course of 10-11 years, as detailed in his current article and in turn should possess an article. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Upon rereading Joe's nomination request, I see that "reference bombing" is mentioned. That was not an intention and was completely accidental. When adding sources, it simply couldn't be decided which one was better so both were thrown in, which as a problem, wasn't considered. I'll see if I can pick out some notable sources.


 * Though I hope validity of sources isn't the main issue here. Because practically every article is indeed credible. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * One more thing to be considered; many of the references supplied were actually just used to prove certain chunks of information are true according to Harchick. For example, the fact that much of his YouTube accounts were deleted was detailed in a video of his. This specific citation was not provided to add to the credibility of the overall article but was simply provided to verify that individual statement. Other citations HAVE been provided to contribute to the overall article's credibility, though. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Those are proper uses of many supporting references. My wish is that people writing new articles would put the notability-attesting references in the first save.  Then add further supporting references after.  You put 26 references in on the first save.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Notability according to: WP:BIO and WP:Creative
 * * Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Very unique contributions of which none other has attempted. Additionally, Vsauce claims at a panel that content by Harchick "wouldn't be found anywhere else". 
 * * The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Harchick was the subject of a Tosh.0 episode.
 * * The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Longest video on YouTube and one of three to count to 100,000.
 * * The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Though not recent, Harchick has won two local awards due to contributions sponsored by well-known Robert Morris University. They were won around the time of Harchick's first nomination for deletion and perhaps these awards were why an article was proposed in the first place. But like I said, a lot has happend since the first nomination. And in all technicality, the fact that awards were won do meet the requirements.


 * Alex, reference bombing is an unfortunate trend of all Wikipedia-spammers. It makes it very hard to review the notability-attesting sources.  Notability should be demonstrated by a minimum or 2, no more than 3 sources.  Independent, reliable (not amazon.com or youtube), secondary source (making commentary or analysis of the topic, and directly addressing the topic (the person Jonathan Harchick).  Can you list these 2 or 3?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course reference bombing is unfortunate. I'd agree that it should be prevented. However I want to say that it was not intentional during this article's creation. And if it's any consolation, references can also be removed. For the sake of neutrality, did you attempt to find any notable sources, yourself?


 * Are the news outlets provided, like starring on The Today Show not be "credible"? I mean, I'd say they're certainly reliable and offer coverage on Harchick's notability quite nicely. Also, ABC News is a widely acclaimed news source, correct?


 * On the other hand, I'm aware that in the "filmography" section, many news outlets that Harchick's been featured on have not been cited in the article so perhaps I can uncover some. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Even if they were reliable sources, that is not significant coverage. It is light relief.  They are featuring him for light relief, not covering him.  As secondary sources, they are very very shallow.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete This is not the guiness book of world records. We do not create articles on people who do utterly pointless and meaningless things just to get attention for themselves. Considering that most of the sources are Youtube, and we should discount blog sources as well, there is a total lack of substantive coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep (Counter)As stated numerous times, "getting attention for themselves" is not specified by the subject and is simply a rumor or estimate created by some of the media. No one can be sure the feats are simply for attention. It was even stated that the channels are hobbies done in the subjects spare time. "Utterly pointless and meaningless" are also heavily opinionated terms in which we try to avoid on Wikipedia. From a neutral point of view, it can be said that what the subject has done is indeed notable according to Wikipedia's criteria. Also stated numerous times, what would be your input on Jonathan Mann and his Wikipedia article? Are they not one in the same? And, sure, this is not a Guinness Book of World Records book, but notable tasks are indeed worth mentioning on the site. What are your thoughts on: List of people who have walked across the United States? Why do they receive an article? Sure the task takes a longer time to complete. Not only that, but a great amount of endurance. But proportions-of-achievement aside, large tasks that have "made a difference online"/"been a milestone online"/"been a notable event all around" are not only worth mentioning, but meet Wikipedia's criteria. Please refer to the bullets below.
 * Remember that notability according to: WP:BIO and WP:Creative states:
 * * Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Very unique contributions of which none other has attempted. Additionally, Vsauce claims at a panel that content by Harchick "wouldn't be found anywhere else". 
 * * The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Harchick was the subject of a Tosh.0 episode.
 * * The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Longest video on YouTube and one of three to count to 100,000.
 * * The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Though not recent, Harchick has won two local awards due to contributions sponsored by well-known Robert Morris University. They were won around the time of Harchick's first nomination for deletion and perhaps these awards were why an article was proposed in the first place. But like I said, a lot has happend since the first nomination. And in all technicality, the fact that awards were won do meet the requirements.
 * Tasks completed by the subject have not only been 'Googled' countless times, but are also the first result to show up. It should be argued that his Wikipedia would be an efficient 'hub' for a recollection of all of his achievements for the ones who are truly interested.
 * -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have struck through your duplicate !vote; you are more than welcome to comment as much as you wish, however you must only !vote (Keep / Delete in bold) once. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Despite the assertions of notability, I cannot find sufficient significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete –Because this person doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE and lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. In addition to being largely referenced to unreliable sources, more than half (14/27) are YouTube sources. None of the remaining sources discuss him in detail apart from profile in upwork.com which is of course a commercial platform for connecting clients who pay &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Hm, I'm starting to see a pattern here. Harchick may meet the notability but many seem to be unsatisfied with the sourcing... -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- does not meet WP:ENT and significant RS coverage not found. Mostly fancruft and trivia. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * * Comment Notability according to: WP:BIO and WP:Creative
 * * Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Very unique contributions of which none other has attempted. Additionally, Vsauce claims at a panel that content by Harchick "wouldn't be found anywhere else". 


 * * The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Harchick was the subject of a Tosh.0 episode.
 * * The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Longest video on YouTube and one of three to count to 100,000.
 * * The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Though not recent, Harchick has won two local awards due to contributions sponsored by well-known Robert Morris University. They were won around the time of Harchick's first nomination for deletion and perhaps these awards were why an article was proposed in the first place. But like I said, a lot has happend since the first nomination. And in all technicality, the fact that awards were won do meet the requirements. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand at this point the article will most likely be deleted, but it's such a shame that all the debaters seem to be ignoring my points. He does meet the criteria if you'll just take a look at the data I've supplied. In the above bullets, he does seem notable according to WP:BIO and WP:Creative. I can understand the admins' nit-pickiness regarding the sourcing, but notability shouldn't be an issue. For Pete Sake, Shane Dawson's wife has a Wikipedia account for some reason, even though she meets none of the guidelines and has done nothing notable. Harchick has accomplished feats many Wikipedia-article-owning celebrities have never amounted to. Shame.


 * But I can't argue against a team of admins. Go ahead and overlook the statements I've included. But in the future, when nominating articles, read each debate thoroughly. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2017 (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.