Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Atwood


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   00:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Roman Atwood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unremarkable YouTube personality. Mjbmr (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Clearly a hoax nomination. This YouTuber has numerous articles about him. I'm going to the AN to report this guy soon. Hawkeye75   (talk)  07:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is already deleted on Spanish Wikipedia ([ log]), He is not a significant person. Mjbmr (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Figuring out what this guideline means would answer the question of why it was deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG per  This one i think is the best source from Variety Magazine:        These sources also include Fox News, ABC, Metro and British national newspaper The Independent. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG and is extremely thorough. Page gets daily average of 2,500 views showing strong demand. Widely known Youtube personality and a great place to summarize his background and bio for his fans. Hierophantus (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Both well sourced in the article - and plenty of sources available even in a cursory check.Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:37, 12 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.