Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan James (filmer)


 * 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. Sandstein 16:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Jordan James (filmer)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Apart from the obvious conflict of interest (the author is the subject, as shown in the copyright statement on the image page) there's no real notability here. He's a YouTube contributor. That's it. The only other source in the article is The 9, which is a videoblog, not a news source. Article asserts notability, so I didn't speedy it as another editor requested, but I still feel it should be deleted. Or perhaps I'm too conservative and it could be speedied by another admin. Kafziel Talk 23:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO as all external references are associated with the subject of the article. Also, autobiography problems.  Selket Talk 23:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how you can claim the external sources are associated with the subject of the article. The second one, fine, that was showing the subject was on Yahoo's show. The first source though is Yahoo.com's official website. How is one of the biggest companies in the world associated with the subject? It's not. It's an independant (a pretty big one at that) source. And the third one is from the BBC's Political campaign website. Same as above. Unless you were in the UK and have seen the episodes on the channel Trouble (as referenced) with your own eyes, i do not know how you wish me to validate this. There are many emails from the companies and many statements from others discussing the tv episodes and commercials, but as i know that will be irrelevant to you i am currently unaware as how you wish me to proove these. Until an external sources actually 'writes' about me, as opposed to showing my episodes on national tv then i cannot. You could ask the tv companies themselves if you wish, but i'm pretty certain you won't. Needless to say the sources are external and are CLEARLY not associated with the subject. Unless i own Yahoo and the BBC, in which case i would need a much bigger Wiki article i think. If you don't live in England, then you wouldn't of seen these, so notability is arguable depending where you live. Thank you for taking, time to consider this. -JordanjjTalk 00:34, 12 February 2007 (GMT)
 * The 9 just shows whatever's on that day. There's nothing selective about it. That BBC "source" is a blog that has just has a comment on it from you saying, "Thanks for using my clip, was nice to see my face on tv," to the guy who the article is actually about. Neither of those constitutes a reliable source or significant media coverage. Kafziel Talk 01:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would have taken the time to watch the short video clip on the BBC website, the video clip which it states was aired on national tv, you will see me on it. I would have thought this would have been an obvious first step upon seeing that page. As for the Yahoo link Yahoo 9 does a daily show reporting on 10 currently 'hot' subjects on the internet. The video linked is from September 5th 06 were if you also take the time to watch, at number 5, is the video referenced in the wiki article. If this cannot be simply comprehended then well i hold little faith that justice will be seen for my wiki if this is the competence of the people who's fate it lies in.Jordanjj Talk 10:47pm, 13 February 2007 (GMT)
 * You just proved my point: "The 9" has nothing at all do with any sort of discriminating content, and the tiny BBC clip has a tiny blip of you. We require actual coverage in multiple independent sources, not just passing mentions. Game show contestants have more air time on national television than this, and they don't each get their own articles. I'm sorry you feel that correctly applying our guidelines makes me incompetent. Kafziel Talk 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Selket and Kafziel. The article was obviously created by the person which it documents, and thus is not in keeping with the spirit of WP:BIO that self-promotion (is not) the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Additionally, as already conceded here by Jordanjj there have not been significant non-trivial works published by a person independent of the subject to justify notability. As a matter of note, I was on New Pages Patrol at the time this article was first created and tagged the page for speedy deletion under CSD A7. thewinchester 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No third-party coverage of the subject (hosting a video is different than actually writing about the subject). ShadowHalo 12:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable sources available. The ones cited don't fit the bill. -- Whpq 21:57, 14 February 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.