Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThatOneTomahawk (Julio Gonzalez Jr)


 * 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. After two relistings, two guideline based delete !votes carry significantly more weight than a single keep based on "other stuff exists" and a fallacious claim of inherited notability. Philg88 ♦talk 08:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

ThatOneTomahawk (Julio Gonzalez Jr)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent coverage of the subject besides YouTube statistics and claims supported by primary sources. Fails WP:BIO. § FreeRangeFrog croak 06:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 13.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 06:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nominator. The claims themselves are not that impressive considering the context but even so one does need some coverage and there is none.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Julio Gonzalez is a mainstream YouTube personality just like the pages Lohanthony and Trevor Moran. Which both of those pages have issues too and aren't "nominated" for deletion. Which is highly unfair. This is still a NEW article, let me remind you it was posted YESTERDAY so it's still being edited. Nominating it a day after it was posted is ridiculous. YouTube statistics are critical because that is what makes him 'popular' and a 'YouTube personality'. So before nominating pages for deletion, learn more facts about what a YouTube personality is. Just because there is no 'news articles' flowing around him, doesn't make him notable. He is a notable person under his father, whom is a professional boxer. Which is why the page was created, however, some dumbwit took that part out. WikiPassionate (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is not inherited, and nothing you've mentioned here makes the subject meet the inclusion guidelines. Other YouTube "personalities" have articles because they are widely covered by independent media - simply saying "has X number of views/subscribers" is not enough. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Obvious failure to meet WP:BIO requirements. No reliable sources exist outside the youtube links that are listed. The fact that this person made a few youtube videos and people have viewed them does not qualify the person as encyclopedic.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:24, 28 August 2014 (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.