Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Gosh


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Omar Gosh

 * – ( View AfD View log )

References do not show the notability of the subject. Not so many changes from previous deletions. fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGIND GermanKity (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I don't have access previous article, I assume based on WP:BASIC and WP:ENT It's notable since it has gained more subscribers and based on the arguments in this page. Mjbmr (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep: His YouTube channels have more than 4 million subscribers.-- Dewritech (talk)  09:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid argument for keeping. He could have 1 billion subscribers, but still not meet WP:GNG. he needs significant news coverage.Peter303x (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your statement is against WP:ENT. Mjbmr (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ENT does not state that social media followers should be considered as a factor. It states that he needs to have significant roles in films and TV. If you want to consider Youtube as some kind of TV channel, then still he would need to have lot's of news coverage about his roles and he doesn't. Social media followers could be fake and bought, so it is not a reliable factor. Peter303x (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read my first comment above, I believe you should be more active on more AfDs, such as this, apparently people believe if the article has a huge fan base then it's considered as notable. I actually refer to an article as "it" while you refer as "he", consider your POV. Mjbmr (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Weak Keep nearly 4 million subscribers on his main channel should constitute a "large fan base or a significant "cult" following" to satisfy WP:ENT. However, the sources do need some cleanup

In summary, despite a significant fanbase, there haven't been many sources to satisfy GNG besides local news coverage, but the coverage does go beyond WP:ROUTINE in my opinion, so it just barely passes. Note I have since removed the Daily Star and Metro sources as they're uncontroversially unreliable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources are self-published or PR and do not satisfy WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  06:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Sources do not have in-depth coverage and there is not that many sources. Peter303x (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per above, per WP:ENT. I believe, it has significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Mjbmr (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and per WP:NOTNEWS. The sources are human interest puff pieces, and are mainly local news. There's not enough here to warrant an encyclopedia entry.4meter4 (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv  🍁  15:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, as per Qwaiiplayer's source analysis above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:01, 21 June 2021 (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.