Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanner Fox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)[reply]

Tanner Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Comment the contest to the current CSD was invalid 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
(edit conflict)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. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Adam9007 Did I say it wasn't? No. But it's a crappy argument at an AfD, which is where we are. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly the article asserts significance. An article sourced from a RS asserts significance. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Significance" perhaps, but not notability, and that is what's required for inclusion. Regarding the "lot of responses" that Reb1981 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)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:GNG significance is Notability. Plus citations have been added. Along with more information. Reb1981 (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.