Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Gott


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Kyle Gott

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prod deleted by creator, citing that he is the 9th most famous person from Iowa according to famousbirthdays.com

XFD for the same reason I prodded:

Non-notable YouTuber, entirely lacking in WP:IRS article bordering on promo. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  12:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete zero indication of notability. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't believe that the single independent source, famousbirthdays.com, is a reliable source suitable for BLPs. The rest of the sources are YouTube videos and channels made by him and his wife. That's a complete SOAP and BLP violation without other sources. --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This shows some of the general consensus to not use famousbirthdays.com in BLPs. --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing any evidence of notability in the article, and I have not found any in my (admittedly brief) search. I don't agree that this is a speedy deletion since there is a claim of significance. It does not have to be a claim of notability to avoid A7. 10 million youtube views is not enough in itself to convince me of notability, but I consider it sufficient as a credible claim of significance. Meters (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The only source I can find about the person (reliable or unreliable) is this Air Force post. Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and I am not finding anything beyond what was mentioned here. ZettaComposer (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence that the subject of the article meets Wikipedia's notability critera at present. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree there doesn't seem to be anything about him independent of his own work. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:04, 14 January 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.