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. AGK [•] 18:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheOdd1sOut[edit]

TheOdd1sOut (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)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. There is no in-depth coverage of his, some passing mentions and niche sources like coverage in a high school magazine. His channel(s) are popular, but being popular on YouTube is not part of any notability guideline, which draws the usual question what treshold of popularity equals notability. IMHO this treshold is the same as usual for GNG/BIO - he needs to have received some reliable, in-depth, mainstream coverage, and this is what I am not seeing. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He is popular, but that doesn't indicate notability. I've only seen one okay reference. Might need to either delete/draft-ify.
  — 192.139.232.228 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
• Delete all of the sources in article are sad social media-driven garbage. Socialblade is a company company that tracks youtube views. It's not what you call journalism.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Weak Keep I'm not here to be harsh or hostile but the current article does not have enough to indicate notability. However, there is enough media coverage to consider him notable, just not in the current article here. Handoto (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:NEXIST, if there is enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, then the subject of the article is notable, meaning your "delete" !vote seems to be an argument to keep. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @IntoThinAir: Yikes, thanks for pointing that out. I'll change my position to Keep, though depending on the outcome it might be good to have the article moved to the draft space where more work could be done. Handoto (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Handoto: could you share some of the links to the media coverage? I couldn't find any sources that mention him in a non-passing manner. --Gonnym (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only sources I can find are not relevant enough. 70.27.93.49 (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  — 70.27.93.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep as per WP:NEXIST. There's enough out there on him and he seems to be a notable and popular cartoonist. I recommend a major overhaul and some more effort done on the article though.---CoughingCookieHeart (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just not notable enough. It's just little mentions and nothing concrete.
  — 192.139.232.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. @IntoThinAir and CoughingCookieHeart: Just like what Gonnym said: NEXIST is all well and good, but if you claim there are good sources, please list them here. I looked and I didn't see 'good' sources. Please show me what I've missed. NEXIST does not allow one to claim that good sources are out there - link them, please; NEXIST cannot be invoked without some proof behind it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - since I'm not getting any response for my question and those citing WP:NEXIST aren't providing any sources, I'll have to support deleting this article as non-notable. Ping me if you've provided the sources and wish me to change my vote. --Gonnym (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. 70.51.125.166 (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  — 70.51.125.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. I think we may disagree on what counts as "significant" and "in-depth" wrt the GNG. In my view, if multiple independent reliable sources give enough information to write a non-stub article, that's significant enough for me. Also, having lots of subscribers in and of itself isn't sufficient to indicate notability, but per WP:ENT, it does lend some weight. Two sources in the article, [1] [2] look like pretty significant and in-depth coverage to me, so the only possible dispute here is reliability (note that one of these sources is a high school newspaper). The other sources in the article are more brief in coverage, but they still add support to notability: Foodbeast's articles about Sooubway [3] [4] [5] and Rare's article about sprinkles [6]. Is that not enough? I think it's enough, but idk I'm usually pretty lax about these things. Other than these articles, I could only find [7], and a bunch of passing mentions in articles about VidCon, YouTube Rewind, and most-subscribed YouTuber lists, so eh. Ahiijny (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sources listed don't indicate enough, at least for now.
  — 192.139.232.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. The source sare exceptionally bad, even for TouTube celebrities--one of them is a high school newspaper. His recent book is in only 72 libraries according to WorldCat, which is so very low for people in this field as to make his notability unlikely. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, did his book make a NYT bestseller list? (uh-oh, with a couple of reviews would that make the book notable?:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• sorry, and a PW bestseller list...

Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.232.231 (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck your bolded "delete" vote since it appears you have already bolded delete in a comment above. Mz7 (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2018 (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.