Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realjamesh


 * 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 speedily deleted as a blatant hoax by. (non-admin closure) Blablubbs | talk 15:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Realjamesh

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Ugh. This article, like it's predecessor is nothing short of a blatant fabrication. Every single source is paid for spam from blackhat SEO sites and in fact, one is a very poorly done photoshop of a legitimate newspaper, which he was not featured in. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 102.64.130.29 (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 102.64.130.29 (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a discussion at User_talk:Pulisi#Nomination_of_Realjamesh_for_deletion relating to this AfD. Pulisi (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - paid-for spam supported by black hat SEO sources. MER-C 17:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - these "sources" all reek of spam, and there is zero coverage in reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete this person is a 15-year-old kid. There is a need to respect the privacy of minors, even if they are their parents do not act as if they have any privacy. It also is unsightly if we have an article that comes off as criticizing someone for not stucking with a program of making minecraft videos very long that they initiated at 14. This is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; and hopefully blacklist several of the "sources" used. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability is lacking and based on unreliable sources. TimSmit (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - realjamesh is the best even if he is controversial 94.51.20.234 (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Its so clear from   and that hes notable like does it matter if hes controversial just protect the page.Realjameshfan (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC) — Realjameshfan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - he was written about in The New York Age by Emma and the Los Angeles Tribune 77.45.248.154 (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per all above. Spam verging on complete bollocks. Sourcing is primarily dodgy SEO crap; none of which contributes a red cent to notability. Wikipedia is not for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References


 * 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.