Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spoony Experiment (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 delete.  Sandstein  06:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The Spoony Experiment
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page on a minor e-celeb with a website and a youtube channel. It was originally nominated for deletion in 2010, and the only thing that saved it then was that he had won some kind of award through Mashable. Now, I have never heard of this site before, so I have no clue how important this award is. Second, the award was won simply through an online poll, so his fanbase just voted for him on mass in a relatively obscure poll. Conclusion: the poll should not be used to determine his notability. The bigger issues is that he has few sources if any, and the page uses primary sources. These were issues when the page was made in 2010, and the page was tagged in 2012 for these issues, but they haven't gotten better.

Now, I can imagine a page of questionable notability in 2010, but through the years, their fame has grown and now they're notable. But this isn't the case. If anything, his fame has dwindled even more, and he appears to be retired.

Short version: few if any reliable sources to establish notability, and his only award is of questionable validity. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - I see a couple bits and pieces, of which this is probably the best, but not quite enough to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:WEBCRIT. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and also all the rest about him.  He is notable enough that a major game maker, Richard Garriott, brought him over to his castle and did a series of interviews with him, and praised his work.  The awards he won were considered notable at the time, not sure if that's changed.  The guy has done a lot of things  but not sure if any of those got reviews anywhere.  There wasn't as much coverage for internet people in the media back when he was most active so hard to find anything but passive mentions of him about.   D r e a m Focus  16:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * His relationship with Richard Garriot, or how many entries he has on imdb is irrelevant. What matters is sources, and we have 1 short profile. If he ever becomes notable, that coverage will be useful in building a page. But as of now, he's not notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's the app.com one that I linked, indeed, which of course is not enough in itself. I'm not aware of a notability criteria that involves invitations to castles, but if you have other in-depth coverage in reliable sources, I'm happy to switch to keep. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Most of the sources are non-independent or brief. There's the one interview above but this doesn't appear notable for a youtuber. Reywas92Talk 06:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included by Dream Focus in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per the comments above. Lacks the multiple independent significant pieces of coverage needed to demonstrate notability or meet WP:WEBCRIT.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:57, 16 April 2019 (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.