Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThatGuyWithTheGlasses


 * 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. Numerous arguments by new editors who did not address the pertinent issue of notability as defined on Wikipedia, or who made assorted weak arguments, were discounted.  Sandstein  17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ThatGuyWithTheGlasses

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable Internet producer. No independent sources and no news sources found (none in article and not found in Google search). Fails Reliable sources. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Almost no YouTube "producers" are notable, and I see no evidence that this one is. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. no claim to be notable --T-rex 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom, not notable, I edit on here and I'm no way notable! Bevo74 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This YouTube producer is very notable, he has his own site, and is in a "war" with the Angry Video Game Nerd...besides, I just added some new sections and cited some references and sources. 75.62.124.115 (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — 75.62.124.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * comment Your understanding of what constitutes a reliable source is somewhat lacking. You can't use postings from the guy's own website to establish notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Links to the person's own entries on his website and a non-notable site isn't enough to meet the criteria.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 11:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence whatsoever of notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are places that know who he is: http://allwhogainpowerareafraidtoloseit.blogspot.com/2008/01/nostalgia-critic-is-back.html http://pokgai.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/nostalgia-critic-does-pokemon-the-movie/ http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=223028 http://digg.com/music/The_Nostalgia_Critic_reviews_the_movie_The_Wizard http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html;jsessionid=0C1C55227203DBC1C66E521B11F9F654.app05_06?topicId=7116276547&sid=1 Also, Cinemassacre is notable. It's the Angry Video Game Nerd's own website...he's notable, so it is too. Happy now? 75.62.124.115 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that should go as well 192.28.2.6 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - Let's see: two blogs, two webforums, and a post at digg.com. Nope; that's nothing (and just because the AVGN has a website, doesn't make his website a reliable source (or notable, incidentally). -- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Even though I am a fan of TGWTG, I would probably agree with deleting an article about him if he was still on Youtube. However he is no longer a Youtube producer and is independent. Not only that but he was the one who created the "5 Second Movies" meme. That Guy has also done sketches and interviews with other internet notables. 70.53.123.207 (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — 70.53.123.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * KeepThere's also the fact that the Angry Video Game Nerd, another YouTube celebrity and somebody with a Wikipedia page has acknowledged him and the "fued" between the two has already become a popular Internet phenomenon. If 2 Girls 1 Cup can get a Wikipedia page, so can somebody like ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, who has produced more than just disgust on the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estefan (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)  — Estefan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That may be perfectly true, and I hate to keep repeating myself, but without reliable sources it can't be verified, and verifiability is so important to an encyclopedic article that it is right in the five pillars, which are Wikipedia's most important policies. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep That Guy With The Glasses is just as important as The Angry Video Game Nerd and deleting this page would mean that, to be fair, every single article on Wikipedia about a YouTube producer would also have to be deleted. -King SweaterHead (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - blogs, forum posts and Digg links do not convey notability at this time. Also, just because other stuff is on Wikipedia doesn't mean this gets to be as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Once again: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/226338/ http://video.aol.com/video-detail/the-nostalgia-critic/984176898 http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/800736 http://digg.com/comedy/Nostalgia_Critic_Captain_Planet http://allwhogainpowerareafraidtoloseit.blogspot.com/2008/03/nostalgia-critic-speaks-truth.html http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=435691 http://www.tv.com/the-nerd/avgn-responds-to-the-nostalgia-critic!/episode/1208886/summary.html http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lPZdFWC6D38&feature=related http://forums.gamernode.com/showthread.php?t=19175 http://my.spill.com/video/video/show?id=947994%3AVideo%3A316772 http://forums.earth-2.net/index.php?showtopic=4026&mode=threaded http://www.xomba.com/user/thatguywiththeglasses (site where he had bum reviews for a short time) Come on! This guy IS NOTABLE. 75.62.124.115 (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — 75.62.124.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep More and more "YouTube producers" are notable, citing G4's list of "Who's on youtube" and Spike recent signing of the AVGN, a "YouTube producer". The person in question has a long standing feud between a notable producer, James Rolfe, and has claim to be notable himself via Cinemassacre.com, and TheGameHeroes.com websites. Cparsley (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — Cparsley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete none of the links provided do anything to assert notability. AVGN has enough sources to get by with an article.  Getting in a flame war with a notable person doesn't make someone notable. JuJube (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep What about these links? http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3831656.ece http://www.lepost.fr/article/2008/06/20/1211673_voir-un-film-en-5-secondes.html The 'feud' with the AVGN is not a flame war; it's nothing more than a fake created rivalry by two people who respect each other work  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemvs (talk • contribs) 09:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)  — Mikemvs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Keep* As per the reasons above. ThunderPower (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion everything deserves a goddamn page in wikipedia, nc is not that bad except his annoying slogan - I will remeber it so you dont have to - that's awful even though its kinda coll and it reminds you of him......damnit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sd90022 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)  — Sd90022 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep per sources and reasons provided above. Blacklist (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - He is the origin of the "Five Second Movie" trend. This is to the extent of even having The Times UK newspaper write an article on him: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3831656.ece 82.69.9.61 (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep WHAT ARE YOU DOING! Seriously Keep this article, deleting this article is just wrong. Should we remove articles of other celbrities, as TGWTG is to some extent a celebrity. not to the level of george clooney or edward norton, but still pretty famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.118.133.139 (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)  — 216.118.133.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - If AVGN and has his own wikipedia entry, why not this guy?... if "ThatGuy" is removed, maybe AVGN should too. Nubita (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Nubita
 * That's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, a notably invalid argument for retention of an article. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your WP:JNN vote was equally worthless. SashaNein (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is the subject of secondary reliable independent sources as cited above, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY. Once again, some WP users have it in for Youtube celebs. --Oakshade (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - once again: blogs, online forums and the like do not constitute reliable sources; nor does mention in such places constitute notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Times isn't a blog and the coverage is more than a "passing mention".--76.79.244.92 (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't the website Kotaku a blog? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotaku) yet it has it's own wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.89.89 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment- Users responding based on the request at ThatGuyWithTheGlasses website please note: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.-Notability_(web)"


 * http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3831656.ece may be considered a trivial source. The article subject is Hyperediting (editing films (or entire tv series) into bite-sized chunks). It only mentions the subject of the article as one of the pioneers of doing this on the editing. However, this is commonly known as a trailer and just because of its shortness is an internet fad and is correctly listed as a "Microtrends". --Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Five Second Movies are not trailers. Very different. 82.69.9.61 (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That Guy With the Glasses is an internet celebrity. If Chris Crocker can have an article, it's only fair if other internet celebrities get the right to have articles. Lightman2 (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC) — Lightman2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

At the moment, I think it's a bit of a balanced arguement as to whether the article has significant importance to remain on wikipedia. Several websites have written articles about or mentioned Thatguywiththeglasses' work, and of course there was the interview with Handome Tom on Video Game heroes. But at the same time it's still very underground and most 'casual net users' only know him as 'that guy who makes 5 second movies'. Thatguy and the other writers/admins on his site have talked about turning the website into an actual internet company, getting the investment to secure a location to film what is touted to be 90 different shows, each with lengthy running seasons. Maybe when that actually gets underway, and these numerous projects gain popularity around the internet (in a fashion similar to 'The Whitest Kids you Know'), then there will be no arguement that the site deserves a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigis (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing but spam if people want to use YouTube why should they clog up Wikipedia. Youtube celebs  a contradicition in terms I was amazed to see there's a template. It looks like the bloggers have talking to each other. 86.163.86.6 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC) - 86.163.86.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Deleted comment pasted back in by Bevo74 (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeeeeeeep Please I think Wiki can handle this article. That guys is becoming more and more popular and you'll be re-adding him if you delee him now! 217.226.239.26 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Internet celebrities DO exist. Think about it: What is Paris Hilton famous for? Being rich...and other things I won't mention...but she hasn't showed any real TALENT. ThatGuy, on the other hand makes videos that people like. He and his brother write the scripts for them. This shows TALENT. ThatGuy, while not as a famous as Paris Hilton, is still online and is notable. He's going to get even bigger, so you might as well just keep the page we have now. 75.62.124.115 (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Talent does not equal notability. Sure, ThatGuy and company might be more talented than (insert tabloid celebrity here) but that doesn't necessarily mean that there are enough reliable sources to prove anything.  The only way Wikipedia can maintain a high level of accuracy and quality is if every statement written in the encyclopedia can be proven with some sort of evidence, be it unbiased media coverage, a book, or a web site that fits the notability guidelines.  If standards like these weren't regulated anyone could write anything and it would stick as long as it sounded plausible.  That's the biggest issue when it comes to Internet celebrities -- you or I might know that something is true, but we can't necessarily back that up with a source. -Spectere (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - there is no more useless argument for retention than, "He's up-and-coming/They're gonna get bigger/If you delete her now, you'll have to create a new article when she becomes more famous." All of these are really just different ways of saying, "I tacitly admit this subject is not yet notable; but I believe the subject will become notable." -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, The article obviously needs some work, but then again no article in this category is initially well written. But of course that's not the issue.
 * Keep, Let his site grow and their will be more need for a Wikipedia page.


 * 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.