Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OmarGoshTV (2nd nomination)


 * 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 14:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

OmarGoshTV
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and doesn't deserve an article. Hawkeye75  (talk)  01:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not ascertain notability which is also not inherited and the article is a recreation of a previously deleted article . - Pmedema (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Even if the last AFD was 'Hijacked' I still don't feel this is notable and the argument of other stuff exists like this is not a valid argument.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   03:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as the sources seen to be either passing mentions in local papers or unreliable sources (YouTube). Also, You need to provide a rationale for deletion when you nominate, as otherwise it will normally be  speedily kept.  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  08:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure why Hawkeye75 keeps nominating my articles, but Pmedema that time it was hijacked and was deleted by mistake see User talk:MrProEdits, Adog104, Yngvadottir, Northamerica1000, Narutolovehinata5, Premeditated Chaos, Drmies, JJMC89 ping. Mjbmr (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * that's quite a serious thing to say, in that it sounds perilously close to an accusation of stalking. Having said that, if actually added nomination rationales, their reasons would be plain. For what it's worth, K.e.coeffmann has also AfD' a chunk of your articles, successfully too. Maybe it's your chosen subject matter ;)  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  10:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This would be a weak keep; the article cites a few news stories but they do not add up to very extensive coverage. However, nominator provided no rationale, and I can confirm 's statement that the first delete !vote is in part based on a misapprehension; as Mjbmr says, see User talk:MrProEdits. The article was hijacked during the first deletion discussion, replaced with one about a non-notable YouTuber who uses the same name. After this was discovered, there was no objection stated to re-AfDing this article, but it was wrongly deleted and was therefore restored; this is not an illicit re-creation. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - If this was still an article about the "hijacked" subject, I would !vote delete due to a lack of coverage in reliable sources. As for this one, there isn't much under "OmarGoshTV"; however, searching using his real name reveals more hits. The citations given in the article seem to be of the "special interest" kind, but there does appear to be enough coverage specifically about him (as opposed to passing mentions) to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Change to delete per BrownHairedGirl's analysis below. Upon her closer inspection, he has indeed received coverage, but most are of questionable reliability. By the way, I forgot to mention this earlier, but I was the nominator during the article's first nomination. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * where is this coverage which you claim establishes notability? Per my analysis below, I see no sign of any of the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which is required to meet WP:GNG. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sorry that I didn't write my side, but he fails WP:GNG and doesn't deserve an article. Hawkeye75   (talk)  16:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * reminder: your "Delete" !vote is assumed from the nomination and shouldn't be repeated. The usual thing is to call it "Comment"  DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I've read articles about people who are barley known who only got an article because they knew the Beatles or some other celebrity. Omar is pretty popular and keeps getting more popular. I think this should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoTHornet (talk • contribs) 16:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Other articles may exist about non-notable people, but per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that is no reason to keep this non-notable person. And an individual's popularity is not a criterion in either WP:BIO or WP:GNG. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an unremarkable YouTube personality (I'm assessing the current version, not the previous highjacked version). Sources are insufficient for either WP:BIO or WP:WEB, and are mostly tabloid-like such as OhMyMag.com. Other citations include the subjects YouTube channel. Nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article now has a long list of sources, but it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. 3 of the 13 references are to OG's own Youtube channel; another 4 are to online tabloids (OhMyMg.com, PureBreak.com,  Right This Minute, Manila Republic); 4 are less tabloid sources which don't meet WP:RS (San Francisco Globe, Metro, Yorkshire Standard, Christian Post). That leaves only 2:
 * News12Westchester, which is a 105-word plug for a TV show, with only 45 words mentioning OG's video
 * WFSTV, which is the most substantive coverage anywhere; but it a mere 305-word synopsis of a video.
 * I don't see how either of these plugs for a local video-clips TV show is a reliable source.
 * None of this comes anywhere close to meeting WP:GNG. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not an indiscriminate collection of things which get passing mentions in internet tabloids. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @BrownHairedGirl Can you please do your analyze on Roman Atwood, Tom Mabe, Yousef Erakat, Jack Vale, Smosh, Greg Benson, etc too? Mjbmr (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Mjbmr. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  This discussion is about the article OmarGoshTV. It is not about any of those other articles.
 * If you believe that any of those other articles fail WP:N, then feel free to do your own analysis and open any AFDs which you think are appropriate. But their fate is irrelevant to this discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @BrownHairedGirl Good for you only trying to take down this one. Mjbmr (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Mjbmr, I suggest that you spend more time learning how Wikipedia's policies and consensus-forming processes work, and that you drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND approach displayed in your attempt to characterise participation in an AFD discussion as a "take down". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep If losers like Roman Atwood can have their own page why can't Omar? I seen someone on here call Omar "unremarkable", How is Roman "remarkable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.61.153.65 (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Considering we're not discussing Atwood here, I'm not really sure how that is relevant. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Per and nom. This would be an encyclopedic (see what I did there) example of a hardly notable WP:BLP1E.  CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  02:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep He's becoming more and more famous everyday. Like the other commented said. If unremarkable people like Atwood can have a page. So should Omar! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.133.45 (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment "He's becoming famous" is not a valid reason to keep an article and and neither is the existence of other stuff. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:41, 23 April 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.