Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoldierKnowsBest


 * 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. joe deckertalk to me 18:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

SoldierKnowsBest

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreferenced BLP. Cannot find coverage in reliable secondary sources. doom gaze  (talk)  17:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom. There is also some peacock terminology being used such as "Mark Watson is a big name in the YouTube tech community." but there is/are no reference(s) to back up such a claim.  Golgofrinchian  (talk)  19:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I have removed all unreliable sources and peacock material and expanded the entry, I thought 200,000 subscribers and 50 million video views was enough to backup the claim, It was also the first entry and I said I would expand on it. User: KennyMataz
 * Video views and subscribers is not a criteria of notability, we need (generally speaking) significant coverage from third party sources, see WP:GNG. Rehevkor ✉  17:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete unless anyone can find coverage in reliable secondary sources to show he meets WP:Notability (people). I had a brief look but couldn't see any.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An article by Chris Pirillo about SoldierKnowsBest Link
 * Has won 2 Shorty Awards in tech.
 * Article on TechRepublic about his iPhone App and a bit about him Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennyMataz (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I really do believe he is a notable person KennyMataz (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The techrepublic 'review' is user-sumitted, thus is not a reliable source. It does not appear to be a review so much as a copy-and-paste of a press release or similar. I am not familiar with either  Mr Pirillo or these awards, so I would appreciate other editors input about whether these additions meet our guidelines.  doom gaze   (talk)  20:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment-Regarding the Pirillo link, generally blogs aren't considered reliable sources (see WP:RS). (The exception is "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."- does that apply to any extent here?)
 * Sorry if this all seems very bureaucratic KennyMataz, but the rules on sourcing biographies of living people are, sensibly, pretty stict. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Single corps? The army has a unit for soldiers without significant others? Or perhaps just one solitary unit it does not have another name for? Or is that supposed to be Signal Corps? Anarchangel (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that Anarchangel, I have fixed the mistake. Chris Pirillo is most definitely a professional in his field, he has worked alongside Leo Laporte and his blog network is very well known as a major tech resource. I get it Physics is all gnomes thanks, but I do believe that he deserves to be in wikipedia, I'm a big fan, and you may say subscriber count doesn't mean anything, but it means he has 200,000 fans, some of which are new fans and want to know more, everybody turns to Wikipedia to learn more about something and I'm sure this article would be a good contribution KennyMataz (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2011 (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.