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. The suggestion to redirect to Harlem Shake (meme) certainly seems reasonable, and is in line with WP:ATD, but I see a clear enough delete consensus here that I'm going to go with that. If somebody wants to recreate this as a redirect, no problem with that. Discounting all of the keep comments which appear to be result of canvassing on reddit and express no policy-based reasoning. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filthy Frank[edit]

If you came here because https://www.reddit.com/r/FilthyFrank/comments/4rzcyt/what_happened_to_franks_wikipedia_article/, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Filthy Frank (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)

A source mentions the subject uploading the first Harlem Shake (meme) video, all other sources are to the subject themselves. Falls well below WP:GNG & WP:BIO. JacktheHarry (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Outside of the Harlem Shake meme, there are no independent sources that largely cover the other aspects of the article's subject. Also, WP:NRV. MageLam 20:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect as per Rhododendrites. The references to the Harlem Shake meme are completely trivial (the main focus seems to be on Baauer), and most everything else in the article is just channel statistics or YouTube videos. There's nothing here that remotely qualifies for passing GNG. GAB^gab 22:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - i think his article should stay since he is pretty famous youtuber --24.184.132.160 (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think this article should stay up. Miller's character has been on YouTube for a while, and other youtubers with lesser subscriber counts have been kept, so why not Filthy Frank, who has a much higher subscriber count than many other YouTubers? Perhaps it should be a Wikipedia policy that if a YouTuber has 1,000,000+ subscribers, they should have their articles kept, yet well maintained. Unfortunately not much information is known about Joji Miller beside his name, birthday, and background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.173.116.171 (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 153.173.116.171 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)>[reply]

• I would try to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF in an AFD. Besides, the number of subscribers on YouTube doesn't give you WP:INHERITED nobility, there's probably other YouTubers with a million subscribers, or more, that you've may never heard of. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 18:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – besides the source of the BBC and Rolling Stones about starting the Harlem Shake, trivial like GAB has stated, there's nothing notable about his character besides the 'He has a million subscriber' status. WP:NRV – WP:BIO Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 18:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This YouTuber has done a number of different things besides the Harlem Shake. While his subscriber count does not inherently make him notable, his videos have become a part of modern-day pop culture. He has also worked with a number of other notable YouTubers, like JonTron, h3h3, etc. and has had panels at events like PAX. It only seems reasonable to keep this article. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 21:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no significant coverage in media, only reasonable reference is used on "this video compilation helped create the Harlem Shake Internet meme". Just not enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The Filthy Frank Show is an internet series much like h3h3 Productions, JonTron and the Angry Video Game Nerd. Those three series are never up for deletion here on Wikipedia but one has to ask themselves: why? Those series are as notable or even less notable than Filthy Frank. One may also argue that having many subscribers on YouTube does make you notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page but it, in my opinion, does. In the modern world that we live a very watched and subscribed to YouTube channel is very much like a a high-rated television program. The channel is also notable in the traditional sense because albums, merchandise, and fan art have all been made in tribute to the channel's flagship show and is responsible for the creation of the Harlem Shake Internet meme, which is significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia page because the meme was truly one of the largest pop-culture phenomenona of the 2010s. Due to this, this article should not be deleted and Wikipedia as a whole should consider changing its standards to what a notable person/show/etc is. --User:ZSJUSA

— Note to closing admin: ZSJUSA (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacktheHarry (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Frankly [haha], this is sort of WP:NOT#ESSAY (if this can be applied in AFD's); like other articles, other YouTubers are up for discussion at any time. As much as I like Frank as a YouTuber, he doesn't appear to have the sufficient criteria to pass either WP:BIO, WP:NRV, or WP:GNG for that matter because most sources about him are primary and the information about the Harlem Shake is trivial (which could easily be merged to the Harlem Shake article and is up for debate). In addition, many other YouTubers have merchandise and music and fan art, but that doesn't contribute to their notability (unless their music is notable of course). Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete I'm a fan of Filthy Frank and I don't believe he is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article. The same goes for many other "YouTubers". Ghoul flesh talk 01:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Like others have pointed out, Miller is just as notable as other YouTubers with Internet shows that also have articles on Wikipedia. Miller has even collaborated with some other YouTubers that have articles on this site. He created an Internet sensation and is now famous in the present day. Perhaps his article shouldn't be as extensive as it is, listing a variety of characters that are on the show. It's a little ambitious. But I think the article should be kept. Legocityfan119 (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sources are all primary, there is not coverage of this person in reliable secondary sources to connote notability. MLA (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete entirely as there's still none of the confidently better substance for his own article, note that these Keep votes are noticeably from fans. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Harlem Shake (meme), where he's already mentioned as an important figure to that subject. That's about where the coverage stops though. The article isn't egregious enough to necessitate deletion, and I don't think anyone would dispute that The Guardian, Rolling Stone, etc. covering him in relation to the Harlem Shake merits inclusion in that article (going with redirect rather than merge because he's already covered to the extent necessary in the target). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:34, 20 July 2016 (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.