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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Gulasi[edit]

David Gulasi (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)

run of the mill Vlogger MistyGraceWhite (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MistyGraceWhite: In which way is he run of the mill? Under which standard?
WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
Wikipedia:Notability (people) also states: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
You have at least two articles which follow this standard from at least two different publications (Shanghai Daily a.k.a. Shine and The Australian) from two different countries.
Vloggers in foreign countries are not as common, and part of why he's well-noted in China is that he's a foreigner.
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:WhisperToMe a couple of articles are not enough for an article on wikipedia. Significant coverage is needed. WP:NOTNEWS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misty, Wikipedia:Significant coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." - These articles do that. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Ingratis soaccording to you, 2 articles are enough for him to pass GNG? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on context and here I think so, for now: bear in mind the possibility of others coming to light later, as per WP:NEXIST. I notice in another of your nominations you implied that 70 references were not enough... Ingratis (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Ingratis please discuss each AFd on its relevant page. I asked if your opinion was that 2 articles are enough, you have made it clear that you think so. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other AfD goes to indicate that you apparently have a flawed grasp of GNG, which is what's also at issue here, so it's relevant. Also, other editors are not limited to answering your direct questions! Ingratis (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misty, WP:GNG states: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." I presume that means at least two. Also the South China Morning Post has a source discussing Gulasi in particular, and it covers the subject in detail even though he's not the only foreigner covered: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." WhisperToMe (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a full copy of The Australian source from Gale:

    Callick, Rowan (2017-09-02). "How 'bit of a clown' became a Chinese megastar". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27 – via Gale.

    Cunard (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2020 (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.