Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Guy with the Glasses (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That Guy with the Glasses
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:N, no improvement or new claims of notability since last AfD closed as "no consensus". Google News search reveals no relevant hits Zim Zala Bim  talk  23:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If the Angry Video Game Nerd is notable enough for his own page, then TGWTG's associations with him have almost certainly gained him enough notoriety for inclusion. This is not a vote for Keep since I doubt Wikipedia's guidelines allow for such considerations when it comes to notability(though if I'm wrong, then do please consider this as a Keep vote).Bolt Crank (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep for obvious reasons. --69.152.210.81 (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete per: Bad Sources (few, if any, notable/reliable independent ones), Non notable per WP:WEB, Non notable per WP:BIO, seems like advert (ex:"gained cult fame", what cult fame? Never heard of it, no citation to back up) etc. The fact that another similar article exists doesn't justify the existence of this. ProD/AfD it if you feel its not notable Bolt. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral on this. If Angry Video Game Nerd didn't have an article, I would vote Delete.  Can someone explain why AVGN should have one but this guy shouldn't?  They are contemporaries, after all. JuJube (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps review WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  14:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, from what I read, Rolfe has a lot more sources written about him. I'm unsure why so little are available for TYWTG but I guess I'll change my vote to Delete with that in mind.  I'll remember it so you don't have to. JuJube (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for obvious reasons per Noian. McWomble (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I honestly don't see why if the AVGN has an article That Guy shouldn't, his site is gaining in popularity. KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.93.138 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Gaining in popularity anon, is not notability, Also, I and ZimZalaBim stated above that just because another article exists doesn't mean this one should. Just because say, Amazon.com's article exists, doesn't mean some small indiscriminate book site's should too (yes, I'm exaggerating the comparison for clarity, but you get the idea). See WP:NOTE/WP:WEB. Not to mention WP:BLOP, and (assumed) general procedure saying we should mention the real person. (ps:thanks for the illuminating shortcut to WP:OTHERSTUFF zim, didn't know what it was) &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is notable, reliable, independent.  Peacock (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - The show appears to be gaining a great deal of popularity. However, was only able to find a single ref of note to back up my claim. The article, if kept, does need some work. -DevinCook (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The fact is Wikipedia is a website for all information, right? He has a lot of fans who would love a reference to his works. In my opinion, the only reason that the AVGN has a page here is that he was featured on CNN. In the end, I vote keep, because it is unfaire to exclude an article for him just because he is not so popular to be a household name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHeroes (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, Wikipedia is clearly not an indiscriminate collection of all information, and we have notability guidelines to help sort out who should be included. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Entertainers Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." I believe there is sufficient empirical evidence for TGWTG having "a significan "cult" following" and having made "unique" and "prolific" contributions to the field of online video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.65.41 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep: The guidelines on notability include the following:
 * Comment: And where are citations for those weasel/peacock words? Exactly my point in the article being promotive. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, but significantly restructure it. He is notable enough to have been interviewed by reliable sources, such as Revision3, Cory Lemay and The Game Heroes.--Brad M. (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how the Revision3 one is reliable in the sense of establishing notability, it's about a show that interviews many internet people at a time, and wikipedia doesn't need an article for every "notable" web person on that show, or who has a web "show" and is on another web show's show. Heck, my spanish teacher was on a TV show about spanish people in the US, but she isn't notable (not lying). Game Heroes url is the site of theguywiththeglasses, revver is a video site like youtube. Look at their other videos, non notable stuff like: How to play yu-gi-oh. When did WP:RS and WP:BLOP get thrown out the window with WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Besides, if you actually looked at what they cited in the article, you can tell they cited non-notable, irrelevant things, like "fictional feud", etc. Just because it's verifiable doesn't mean it should be included. Removed non-notable/citations for non-notable, trivial, useless sections which are used as a excuse to not delete for no citations. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:40, 5 December 2008 (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.