Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Williamson (2nd nomination)
Appearance
Source: 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. Little appears to have changed since the first discussion; a few references were added, but as pointed out they don't add up to significant coverage. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Williamson
AfDs for this article:
- Alex Williamson (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)
Previously deleted in September last year, lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to prove his notability. The-Pope (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete According to Your Turn 13:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete According to
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, therefore does not meet ]
- Keep I think the article meets the criteria for ZDoggMD. This artist has less than one tenth of the video views than the artist in question, and less than one sixteenth of the subscribers. I appreciate these statistics aren't criteria specifically listed in the Wiki guidelines, but surely from a discretionary point of view cannot be ignored by the community.Straphanger510 (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 01:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Straphanger510, if you can't agree that "having a channel on Youtube does not make it notable", please look at Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and having a Youtube channel does not demonstrate that. Note also that notability is completely separate from popularity: the fact that many people have watched his videos does not help us write a good Wikipedia article — that's what independent sources are needed for. Dricherby (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Straphanger510, if you can't agree that "having a channel on Youtube does not make it notable", please look at
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —HueSatLum 00:11, 2 June 2012 (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.