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. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BradTheLadLong[edit]

BradTheLadLong (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)

Does not meet notability standards / article used for advertising & promotion of subject / uses subject as self-publishing source where sources are unduly self-serving / involves unverifiable claims about third parties / article mainly based on gossip & feedback looping Tpowell91 (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this gentleman is being noticed and discussed by mainstream media. If what he does is dislikable, it's not for us to penalize him for that. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If they were in the mainstream media, it wasn't because of their fame and it seems like they're only famous for acting like an idiot and getting 'in other news' attention; and I've removed a clear ADVERT designed to troll an awards event into giving the subject an undeserved award. Nothing notable here I see outside of stuff found in gossip sections. Finally, article creator has only edited this article outside an immediately-reverted edit to another YouTube celebrity, so that needs to also be taken into account. Nate • (chatter) 02:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. No assertion of notability. Few reliable sources; no significant coverage anywhere. Creation of an SPA, likely promotion or self-promotion. --Lockley (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a gossip section or a tabloid. That is all the coverage here is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 29 June 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.