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. Secret ^account 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Baker

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

plain advertising. Not convinced about his notability too, due to the many sources that fail WP:RS and the extensive edits of clearly involved editors ([1])The Banner talk 21:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and clean up. This article relies too much on citations to blogs and cites that are not reliable. For example, it cites his Youtube statistics from one site, but I can find another site that gives different statistics that do not include him in the top 100. As far as I can tell, Youtube does not announce "official" statistics, and where one appears in the ranking used by others can change minute by minute. (This is similar to Amazon ranking, where an item can be in the top 100 for a few minutes one day in May, for example). The article could be half as long, much less superlative, and should drop the cites to blog posts (and thus the data supported by them) and his own work. I think this person would still be notable since his videos are well known and extremely popular. The references I would keep are: 3, 5, 14, 18, 24 (although the latter, the webby awards is ironically such a horrid online experience that I cannot find his video there). I could try a reduction of the article if the conclusion is "keep." LaMona (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Although clean up is not my target, I guess clean up can enhance the keep-chances of this promo-piece. The Banner talk 14:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. The only provided reasonable source that provides any depth of coverage about Baker is a Washington Post based Blog. That's not enough. The Webby award is not a major award, it's a pay for play award farm giving out hundreds each year. If this is kept it should be totally rewritten to reflect this source. Along the lines of Baker is a youtube parodist who is neither smart nor funny. Not the fawning adoration that exist now duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the five refs mentioned above. (as at 22 nov, assuming these are the ones meant) 3. Huff Post, normal not a reliable source, no indication this is otherwise. Just him talking about himself. 5. no depth of coverage about Baker. 14. Huff post again, not a RS. 18. Best of a bad lot, questionable reliablility as a blog, not enough by itself. 24. Primary. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2014 (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.