Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Clark (animator)

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. Aoidh (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Clark (animator)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD that was restored form WP:RFUD. Original rationale was "Non-notable, most of the sources I find are for an unrelated Alex Clark since many people have had that name throughout history." proposed by me ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Comics and animation, Entertainment, and United States of America. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What changes would you like to see done to the page to address your concerns? Alex Clark is a Youtuber with 4 million subscribers and is currently active. 76.91.157.0 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely irrelevant to his notability. Read WP:N. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be a notable figure based on what is currently written on his wikipedia page and there are links to several notable sources including Huffington post and deadline. Can you please explain what you're considering when deciding on notability. 76.91.157.0 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not based solely on the fact that there are reliable sources in the article. It's based on whether those sources are independent from the subject and that those sources are in depth in their coverage on the subject. I'll create a source assessment table based on these criteria to make it easier to see what source do and don't contribute to notability. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Based on the link you provided all the linked articles appear to be independent from the subject and a few are in-depth as you discussed. Im just not sure what you are looking to be established in the article thats not already present. 76.91.157.0 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. Nothing found that meets IS RS with SIGCOV.

Source table:

Comments	Source
Short review of a single appearance.	1. Murray, Tom (August 19, 2017). "Fringe review: Alex Clark". Edmonton Journal. Retrieved February 27, 2018.
Promo	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c "YouTube Millionaires: ItsAlexClark Finds It "Really Fun To Figure Out How To Tell A Story"". Tubefilter. December 14, 2017. Retrieved February 27, 2018.
Promo	3. ^ Jump up to:a b "Comedian Alex Clark featured at MSSU". Joplin Globe. April 15, 2016. Retrieved February 27, 2018.
Mention, promo for awards show	4. ^ Ramos, Dino-Ray (August 22, 2017). "7th Annual Streamy Awards: Casey Neistat, Lilly Singh, 'Mr. Student Body President' Among Nominees". Deadline. Retrieved February 27, 2018.
Promo	5. ^ "Alex Clark. Comedy". itsalexclark.com. Archived from the original on April 5, 2018. Retrieved April 4, 2018.
Promo	6. ^ "Comedian-juggler to perform Oct. 8 in W.P." West Plains Daily Quill. September 29, 2015. Retrieved February 27, 2018.
Promo	7. ^ "Confused about the US gun debate? This video uses cats to show one side of the argument". Irish News. March 13, 2018. Retrieved September 13, 2018.
Promo	8. ^ McDonald, Andy (March 9, 2018). "Animator Brilliantly Explains The Gun Control Debate Using Cats". Huffington Post. Retrieved September 13, 2018.
Promo	9. ^ Gibson, Donte (March 10, 2018). "This Animator's Hilarious New Video Uses Cats To Make An Important Point About Gun Control". A Plus. Retrieved September 13, 2018.
Promo	10. ^ Gutelle, Sam (June 14, 2018). "ItsAlexClark, Bart Baker Among YouTube Stars Featured In New Mobile Game". Tubefilter. Retrieved September 13, 2018.

BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 07:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting this together.

I agree that 3, 6, 10 are promo... the others dont appear to be promo to me. Is there a definition we are basing this decision off of? Also, the original comment " non-notable, most of the sources I find are for an unrelated Alex Clark... what was the search term used.... when I google search Alex Clark Youtuber in a private search window it populates the entire first page with only results for this specific Alex Clark. maybe we need to change the title of the article from Alex Clark (animator) to Alex Clark (Youtuber)? 76.91.157.0 (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The search term I used was Alex Clark +animator -wiki. Also, I don't know what you were searching but searching "Alex Clark +youtuber -wiki" returns 0 results. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a video screen capture of the search and its results on a private window in google:https://www.veed.io/view/57936523-2e8b-40b8-9a48-71732c4b1710?sharingWidget=true&panel=share 76.91.157.0 (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand Wikipedia guidelines and review the sources in this table, source 1 is independent, and reliable enough, but doesn't offer much coverage beyond one performance. Guidelines suggest significant coverage of the subject versus covering a single aspect. Source 3 appears like a public relations hand out, which is not completely independent. Source 4 is a list that only mentions this article's subject. Source 5 is self-published (i.e. not independent). Sources 7, 8, and 9 appear sufficiently independent to me but are not in-depth coverage of anything more than a short-term "burst of news coverage" (i.e. gun control video). The notability guidelines prefer "sustained coverage". Yammie2009 (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not have multiple sources that meet notability guidelines. Article has a strong promotional tone.Yammie2009 (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are promotional and article does not meet WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is clearly promotional and the table above only prove this incline once more. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2023 (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.