Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Wu


 * 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. Kafziel Talk 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Wu

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I didn’t want to be the one to do this when there is so much else on Wikipedia to be improved, but still, here we are. This is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion, the last time being around 5 months ago. Now, since then Kevin Wu has had a major increase in his number of subscribers/position is the “Most Subscribed” section of YouTube, but other than that, the general problem with the article remains, in that are no reliable published secondary sources o establish notability. There are references, but all of these are either primary sources or blogs, which alone do not satisfy the notability criteria.

It has, in the first deletion discussion, been addressed that according to the notability guidelines for entertainers, if an entertainer has a large fan base or significant “cult” following, he may be considered notable. That being said, the only evidence we would have to judge if he has a “cult” following would be his number of subscribers which, although it has doubled since the last nomination, is currently just under a hundred thousand. Now, there has been and still is a good deal of doubt surrounding whether YouTube subscribers can be used as evidence of anything. Generally, the idea behind a YouTube subscription number is this: Anyone who is a significant “fan” or supporter of a person probably is subscribed to that person, but at the same time, not everyone who subscribes is a major “fan” or supporter. Even if we were to assume that he does indeed have a following of a hundred thousand people, that’s hardly a significant, or “cult” following at all. For an internet personality, he actually has relatively little demonstrable name recognition outside of YouTube, even throughout other parts of the internet, and as far as I can see it, being relatively popular on YouTube and on YouTube alone is not enough to establish notability. Calgary (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep almost 100,000 subscribers and over 4 million channel views on YouTube. If Chris Crocker is considered notable for among other things, his Leave Britney Alone video, then I think this also qualifies. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing to Delete, unless some reliable secondary sources can be found. I should have actually read the references a little bit closer. Sorry guys :(, happy new year :). Mr Senseless (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as the article fails the WP:BIO guideline and the WP:LIVING official policy. There are no reliable secondary sources. We don't accept blogs as sources. Two links are for subscribers only, and one is to a Wikipedia mirror. WP:BIG is not an argument for AfD or a justification for article inclusion by itself. One of the primary founding principles of Wikipedia is that Wiki is about covering existing knowledge - Wiki is not about creating that knowledge. When a reliable secondary sources writes about Kevin Wu that is the time we write an article on him - not now.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah sure. I think I went too far anyway. Iamwisesun (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain The common sense argument is too strong for me to vote "delete". I guarantee you that in every high school or junior high school in the English speaking world that has a student body comprising middle-class, wired youths, there are people who have seen, and possibly become familiar with, KevJumba's videos.  Ichormosquito (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per what SilkTork has said. One big policy of verifiability to reliable sources is not provided in this article in the current form at the current time. Dekisugi (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as appearing to lack substantial, third-party coverage. If he becomes more notable in the future I won't object to a recreation.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Although he is immensely popular and famous on YouTube, he is not well-known outside of it...google him and all you have are blogs that talk about him, nothing published. He has no other outlets (interviews, other films) that make him notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.196.76 (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2008 (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.