Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Stevens (Internet personality)


 * 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   redirect to Vsauce.  Sandstein  11:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Michael Stevens (Internet personality)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No 3rd party coverage outside of Vsauce, making this page redundant, so delete and redirect to there. Otterathome (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Vsauce. Most of the article is about Vsauce, anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

 Forgive me if I'm not commenting in accordance to Wikipedia's rules, but I just had to sign up and try to defend this article. Michael Stevens is a skilled public speaker whose work will have a certain influence on future generations. Just look at the number of subscribers and views of his videos (numbers are in millions). Please, do reconsider. Maidros85 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect wp:BLP1E - for Vsauce. Non-notable personally, but we might as well send the redirect there.  Neonchameleon (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are very, very few actual rules on Wikipedia, though there are conventions and "best practice" guidelines. Notability is the issue here, not skill or influence.  Wikipedia defines notability as significant coverage by independent reliable sources.  This would include newspapers, magazines, scientific journals, books, etc.  Websites that demonstrate a history of fact-checking and have an editorial department also count.  Blogs, personal websites, press releases, and other self-published sources do not.  Thus, one can have millions of followers on YouTube or Twitter yet not have the coverage in reliable sources that Wikipedia requires.  Notability is distinct from fame and influence, and it has nothing to do with talent.  In order to save the article, it needs citations that demonstrate that the media has noted this individual. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2013 (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.