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. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pewdie[edit]

Pewdie (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)

"PewDiePie is the YouTube account of Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg ..." The real person is not notable and his online persona is recent only self-promoting via gaming. No long term significance. All sources from Feb to Sep 2012. Issues with WP:BIO and notability. Does not appear to be encyclopedic as written, but more like a review or ad. Jrcrin001 (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No long term significance? If you said that about him before July, I would have agreed with you. Pewdie has been overall the fastest growing channel of the past 2^[1] and 3 months.^[2] As mentioned in the article Pewdie had 309,000 subs by late March 2012. He grew to 1 million on July 11. On September 20 (only a little more than two months later) had reached 2 million. Pewdie has been featured on full articles twice by Expressen, a major Swedish newspaper,^[3][4] Yahoo,^[5] Kotaku^[6]. The other sources aren't as strong as those four but they do provide a little more insight and verify certain statements in the article, especially the sourze.se one. Soulboost (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For your information, I was conducting new article reviews when I came to the page in question. I have never heard of this person, nor ever seen any of your articles before this time. My review was based on Wiki rules. Last July, some one else made a comment. Notability is not '15 minutes of fame' or even short term internet fame. If the subject is notable in the future, then he will be around for many years and if he is good enough, other secondary sources will document his notability. At present the subject is just too new and the focus is so narrow not to be encyclopedic. Again, maybe in the future, but not now. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A correction I have to make is I meant the xconomy one not sourze one. I apologize, I was confused for that moment. Also I do agree that PewDie is only recently surging, but I feel it is enough to at least keep the article and try to improve from its current point. Soulboost (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Comments as of this revision

• Source 1 and 3 (expressen.se) is reliable, and seems to be the only good sources here.
• Source 2 (sourze) is a strange list, includes one sentence about him. Source seems to have been rejected both times it has come up at AFD.[1][2]
• Source 4 (eitb) is a one sentence mention, and has no author name?
• Source 5 & 6 (yam.com & kotaku & otaku) barely an articles, just some pictures and embedded videos of people playing videos, including one of pewdiepie's.
• Sources 7, 8, 11 are not independent.
• Source 9 xconomy is a digital news type online only source, pretty average source/article.
• Source 10 is just a randomly uploaded video of him on a website.

So in summary, the only sources that contribute to his notability are the expressen.se ones and the so-so xconomy. So the article sits in WP:NOT#NEWS/WP:1E territory still.--Otterathome (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking sourcing. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte - The one source I found was Xconomy February 16, 2012, which Otterathome reviewed above. Otterathome also commented above on expressen.se 31 March 2012. Doesn't look like enough info between these two sources for a stand alone Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The PRWeb reference is a great in-depth reference. I advise to re-consider after checking the PRWeb one out. Plus Xconomy Seattle and two articles from Expressen are also in-depth. The Kotaku one centered around him isn't as in-depth as those three but is a nice touch to the article's refs.Soulboost (talk) 03:41, 30 September 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.