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. czar 06:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug DeMuro[edit]

Doug DeMuro (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)

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. Fails to establish WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you feel this article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards?--AirportExpert (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
I felt a speedy deletion was inappropriate, so I changed it to a regular proposed deletion so we have some time to discuss this. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, and would like to have time to provide my opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AirportExpert (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Neither popularity or importance is a road to inclusion into Wikipedia. One needs to establish notability per Wikipedia standards. The article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. This is needed to meet the criteria in WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As indicated above, one needs to establish notability per Wikipedia standards. The article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. This is needed to meet the criteria in WP:N. The sources are trivial and the works are not substancial or significant. None of that meets WP:N criteria. reddogsix (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The reason I created Doug's infobox as a Youtuber rather than a person of significance, e.g. a journalist, is because within the YouTube circle, he is indeed significant. If I felt he was significant in other circles, such as journalism, I would have made the infobox as such. I can guarantee you that almost every other famous youtuber with an article on Wikipedia would have their page deleted if we went by this standard. He has a plethora of sources from pages such as Business Insider, CNBC, Autotrader, Jalopnik, but these are not what make him significant. What makes him significant is YouTube, and is why I chose to create an article for him.
Basically, Doug is mostly notable as a YouTuber, and everything else is simply used as a reference to add to and expand upon his credentials.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't understand how two articles written about Doug on Business Insider and an appearance on Jay Leno's Garage (which was nationally aired on CNBC), plus a variety of other news and automotive news references doesn't constitute notability by Wikipedia's standards.
Thank you, this definitely helps. I believe that the Business Insider and CNBC references bring him to national fame, and consider him notable for Wikipedia. He does a lot more than just YouTube, which he is recognized for and what makes him notable.
with all due respect, that's not accurate. While some references are made about articles he's written, there are a variety of sources that are not. Secondly, he's famous for being an automotive journalist so what do you expect articles written about him to be about?
Comment - Hence the rub, in order to be included in Wikipedia a subject has to notable. Specifically, "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. 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..." So the short answer, is yes, articles need to be written about him. reddogsix (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that there are sources describing Doug in detail. The first part of the clip where he was on Jay Leno's Garage, a summary is given about Doug's work as an automotive journalist (which was included as a reference). If that isn't extensive enough, we need to define "extensive". In fact, I waited to create this page until the episode aired, because I knew that degree of publicity would constitute a Wikipedia article, which he otherwise wouldn't have.--AirportExpert (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
Comment The word Wikipedia uses is 'substantial' rather than 'extensive' but yes, we clearly do have a difference of opinion on the definition. I couldn't watch that video through CNBC as it is seemingly not available in Europe, but I watched it on YouTube instead. Here's a transcript of the first part of the clip: "Today I'm with Doug Demuro and if you don't know him - big car guy. He lives cars, he breathes cars. Doug Demuro is a friend of ours and a car blogger with his own YouTube channel where he reviews and test drives cars. He also has a column for autotrader.com called oversteer." What is substantial is determined through consensus, but I don't think those four sentences come anywhere near the threshold for substantial coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My take on it, is the fact that he had an entire segment on a national TV show about him, plus the business insider articles totaling to three significant references alone, plus many more references (which would be considered more than sufficient on any other article of this detail) makes for Doug's significance, to the point where a Wikipedia article is acceptable.--AirportExpert (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
  • Comment - A four sentence introduction does not make the show about him - it only featured him. If it was an entire show dedicated to his life and accomplishments (à la This Is Your Life) I might agree, but having him guess cars it not such. There is not enough there. reddogsix (talk) 16:06, 2 July 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.
More