Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MysticGotJokes


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

MysticGotJokes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article lacks third-party reliable sources of any kind and has no claim to notability; fails both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Aoidh (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 16:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 16:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 16:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I was going to nominate for the same reasons today if the creator still had not added sources. There are lots of ghits, as is typical for a YouTuber, but I'm not seeing significant coverage. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for now as nothing is better convincing for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister   talk  03:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Artist is referenced in article which mentions in detail information about him, which definitely suggests he is notable.-Robert Hill-Forntongoover — Bobby-hillfornton (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Are you referring to this? It's a questionable WordPress blog that has no obvious editorial oversight; hardly a reliable source. Articles on Wikipedia require multiple third-party reliable sources per WP:GNG, not a single, questionable source with no significant coverage whatsoever. As far as WP:BIO goes, the article doesn't come close to meeting that notability guideline. As the article's creator I understand not wanting to see the article deleted, but the article doesn't even come close to meeting any of the relevant notability criteria for an article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks sufficient sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2016 (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.