Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Boots


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Normal Boots

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable; doesn't have any references that indicate notability and thorough searching doesn't reveal any references of note.  Iago Qnsi  (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the JonTron page was redirected after an intense fourth nomination, creating an article for Normal Boots and having material for JonTron and others, including Did You Know Gaming?, which already inherits an stable article on its own, would be a better, and more stable way to contain encyclopedic content on JonTron and related people and shows that would not fall under notability issues. That's IF users on this Wikipedia can contribute instead of lazily choosing not to contribute and deleting pages, hence the Template:Under Construction placed on top of the article. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 19:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's true that a Normal Boots article could be a good way to host JonTron information, but the notability of Normal Boots needs to be established first, through verifiable reliable sources indicating notability. Notability is not inherited. - Iago Qnsi  (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. I'm a fan of JonTron et al, but Wikipedia's guidelines for notability are very clear. If someone can bring up some more sources to indicate notability, I'll by happy to retract my vote. Hirohiigo (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails the WP:GNG. No coverage in reliable sources. Quite the opposite, 2 of the sources currently used are from ScrewAttack, which is actively deemed unreliable at WP:VG/RS. Gamingbolt doesn't look promising either. Sergecross73   msg me   16:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's actualky listed as situational but that being said I don't think coverage by ScrewAttack would be enough.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, but the "situation" is that the random person user blogs aren't useable/reliable. The articles are credited to " Kaibaman41 Blog" and "caboose-1 Blog" - these are precisely the type of content that is not useable here. Sergecross73   msg me   17:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per Sergecross. -- ferret (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable for WP's purposes, despite the "household" name that JonTron's created for himself on the Internet. --M ASEM (t) 02:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)?
 * What then are Wikipedia's "purposes"? If JonTron is a household name, that's notability.  Konveyor   Belt  19:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of terms in " " is often meant to denote sarcasm and it becomes clear when that was the intention with the the household comment when one looks at the recent JonTron AFD where Masem recommended merging the article with Game Grumps stating that without the unreliable sources there was not content to justify an article. This was earlier this month so I highly doubt that Masem changed his mind since then and that I'm sure that he would have made that clear if he has.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Come on, you're an experienced user - do you really need help figuring out ways that the GNG=/="household name"? (Answer: Lack of third party coverage deemed reliable by Wikipedia's standards.) Sergecross73   msg me   21:43, 21 April 2014 (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.