Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanner Fox


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Tanner Fox

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Individual does not meet the notability guidelines and even a quick look through Google highlights the lack of reliable sources. The one BBC source is a video interview which is primarily clips from the individual's YouTube channel. This has previously been CSD'd with similar content, and the contest to the current CSD was invalid (another issue for another day) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 22:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC) *Keep While there is currently one source on the article. A simple google source comes up with a lot of responses. Reb1981 (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - On futher review with the lost of other reference. There is not enough to establish GNG. Reb1981 (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you're not referring to cruft such as "Frostsnow" (self described as "Frost Snow: Unique collection of Bio, Gossip and Article") and Famous Birthdays (with wholly unsupported claims such as "He was such a video addict that it got him kicked out of a private Catholic school when he was just 11)"? What the actual fuck is Wikipedia becoming if fan submitted and poorly over-sighted websites are used as an authority source? A simple google source comes up with a lot of responses - so does a Google search for the moon being made of cheese. Perhaps you need to spend some more time learning about what a reliable source is -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll spare the pejoratives. As to his getting kicked out of school and why, the man himself has said as much. knoodelhed (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's nice - so because he apparently said something it's a fact, right? I've moved your !vote to the bottom of the AfD -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 21:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to be insulting or even using profanity here. Expecically coming from an Admin. I was just on page trying to help the creator. It is true the sources are not perfect, but it still there is enough there to show something. I am just going to move on to my next project. Reb1981 (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Here we go again... I shall explain: the article claimed he has 3 million Youtube subscribers. I know of notable Youtubers with fewer subscribers than that, such as Angry Video Game Nerd. Adam9007 (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct per channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDLmS9vkPcTz3cAc-c9QIzg he has almost 5 million. He also has a brand of scooters from searching https://www.tfoxbrand.com/ Reb1981 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And how many times do we say "number of viewers/subscribers is irrelevant". Unless it's record breaking. This is certainly not. And those other YTers don't have articles because of their followers or view count. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  23:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Having millions of subscribers is an indication that the channel is well known and could have the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Did I say it wasn't? No. But it's a crappy argument at an AfD, which is where we are. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  23:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. It sounded as though your "number of viewers/subscribers is irrelevant" argument was about how it's not even a claim of significance. Adam9007 (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment "Here we go again"-- indeed. The newly created by a novice article is still in the process of sourcing and expansion. It might be better to wait until all souring and expansion efforts are complete before nomming here.Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly the article asserts significance. An article sourced from a RS asserts significance. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: "Significance" perhaps, but not notability, and that is what's required for inclusion. Regarding the "lot of responses" that mentions, Google results show one or two tabloid interviews, one local news piece, and a whole lot of articles about other people with the same name. If someone wants this to be kept around for improvement, then it should go to Draftspace. Regarding the CSD argument above, there is no point in arguing about the CSD tag here, as it's completely irrelevant to a discussion at AfD. If someone wants to argue about the tag or decline, there are other venues for that. Waggie (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:GNG significance is Notability. Plus citations have been added. Along with more information. Reb1981 (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I've removed the poorly referenced, badly written, NPOV-violating, entirely un-encyclopedic toned statements and snipped out the references which aren't even in the same county as "reliable". I'm sorry, but I can't see how this article's subject is anything other than someone with a few snapchat followers and makes YouTube videos - I, along with I dare say the majority of people here, don't want to see Wikipedia filled with non-notable cruft -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Waggie and nom. Additionally, the fact that he has a business is pretty irrelevant unless the business itself is notable. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  20:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a news item from Channel 10 in Phoenix, qv. I think something's going to manifest in print eventually, maybe even the Union-Tribune. knoodelhed (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think something's going to manifest in print eventually - WP:CRYSTAL, cut the unverifiable speculation -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 21:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed frostsnow.com, famousbirthdays.com, and thefamouspeople.com as unreliable sources inappropriate for a BLP. I removed tfoxbrand.com as WP:REFSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I detagged the thing and attempted rescue. The sources removed were the best I could find. The Crystal ball blurbesque coverage mentioned above is not sufficient. Not sufficient coverage for GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: as per @Dlohcierekim's rationale, which I adopt. Quis separabit?  16:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete GNG not met, even after a valiant rescue attempt by an experienced editor. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 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.