Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connor Franta

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Franta

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

This is a procedural nomination. The article was tagged for speedy delete per A7. Although I rarely see a new article about a YouTuber that should be kept, in this instance, I thought the article had more claims of significance and even sources to back up those claims, so I declined it.

The article, though, had a strange title: "Connor Franta (Connor)". I checked to make sure that an article with the title "Connor Franta" didn't exist, and I moved it.

Apparently, I wasn't cynical enough because there was an article called Connor Franta that had previously been deleted (I didn't check the revision history of the title). In fact, it had been deleted seven times per A7, and it had been salted. Obviously, I was in a minority, and if I seen that, I probably would have acted differently.

I'm not in favor of now speedy deleting it after the fact because my judgment hasn't changed. However, I think whether it's notable should be brought before the community for a discussion. It will also mean that the notability of the subject will have had a fuller airing in case the consensus is delete and it is again recreated. Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but reluctantly. I personally think that most articles about "famous" bloggers and YouTube stars and such should go, but this person has quite a bit of coverage. For example, take a look at the results that a Google search turned up (if you notice, there's several well-respected news sites there). So, I think this narrowly passes WP:GNG. --Biblioworm 00:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am quite sick, personally, of the general Wikipedian anti-ness of Youtubers, given these people are reaching audiences 'mainstream' websites and bloggers of old never reached, yet are 'notable'. Someone really needs to write a more sensible set of notability guides for YouTubers. Anyway, getting off my soap box - Connor Franta has over 3 million subscribers. Thanks for at least bringing this to AfD. Definitely doesn't fall into A7 since it does make a claim of notability, the popularity of one of his videos. That claim could definitely be seen as real enough given the news was featured in Out, MTV, BusinessInsider Huffington Post, Queerty and E! Online. He has had other past coverage as well, such as the TubeFilter and Guardian articles used in the article, BusinessInsider article in September and an AdWeek coverage. Coverage like this is everywhere. [1], [2], [3]. JT_dale^Talk~ 01:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on those articles I would say that he is indeed notable, though it's worth noting that the number of subscribers he has is largely irrelevant. See WP:NUMFRIENDS. DiscantX (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this post is actually about a famous Youtube person he has been recognised by many respected websites and newspapers. and i understand that this was previously created by many fans which was deleted. but now it is very well reference and has a neutral tone. i don't see any violation--Akdo121 (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC) — Akdo121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Keep - I think this page should be kept because when i created this page i knew all the requirements for creating a wikipedia page of anyone. this person Connor Franta i a well recognisable person who has been written about in well respected newspaper such as [[The Huffington Post] and Dailymail. I am also aware that alot of people has been trying to create a Wikipedia page for this person and those people are probably his fans. i see no violation of Wikipedia's guideline and therefore this should be kept--Laxide13 (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reluctant Keep~~ – Based on the articles provided by User:JTdale, he probably meets notability, although it seems (without reading every one of those articles) that the main thing he is notable for is coming out. The article should focus primarily on that, in my opinion. And those sources should be added to the article, since the only reliable source I see there at present is from The Guardian (famousbirthdays and tubefilter do not appear to be reliable sources. I'm not sure about entrepreneur.com as I can't get it to load). DiscantX (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article loads easily when I click on it. I use Firefox, if that matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's my internet connection. A couple of pages are going slow for me. I just meant I can't personally verify it, not that the page doesn't exist. Cheers! DiscantX (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TubeFilter and Entrepreneur.com are both reliable. See Tubefilter and Entrepreneur (magazine). JT_dale^Talk~ 02:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling that Entrepreneur would be reliable, but I wasn't sure. TubeFilter still seems like a pretty low-quality tabloid style blog to me, but as I am unfamiliar with it I'll defer to you. Just out of curiosity though, what exactly is it that makes it reliable? Other than being cited in a few instances by sources that I would consider reliable, it seems to be a largely opinion-based blog. Is there precedent for using them as a source on Wikipedia that you are aware of? DiscantX (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After reviewing the article and its sources again, I have to change my mind about this. Though there is some evidence of notability mentioned on this AfD, it a) Doesn't exist in the article and b) Doesn't seem to warrant a page here. This article is entirely promotional and appears to have been created and edited almost entirely by fans of the subject, who are not neutral. Nearly no claims of notability have been made past how many friends he has and that he had a YouTube video that went viral about him coming out. As well, this AfD appears to have recieved the attention of some of his fans, either as a result of Canvassing or simply because of their loyalty as (non-neutral) fans. I have removed many of the sources listed for this article for reasons I listed on its talk page. Discant X 01:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I suppose. Franta has a sizable YouTube following, his coming-out received heavy media attention, and several other so-called "YouTubers" have articles (some of which have less "subscribers" than Franta). I see no other option, in keeping with Wikipedia notability standards, but to keep. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not convinced that the "15 minutes of fame" is not just temporary. "Significant coverage" is somewhat confusing, as a lot of newspapers/news agencies/tv stations have carried pretty much clones of a few "spotlight" articles. Newsworthy does not mean "has to have a stand alone Wikipedia Article". Could be part of a larger "group" type article, maybe "viral quasi celebrities". — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotWillyWonka (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete May be notable in the future, but the sources provided are all about him coming out as gay, which seems like a case of WP:BLP1E. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell all of the sources are about a single event - a video about him coming out as gay. As above, per WP:BLP1E, I'd suggest we Delete for now. If he gets another 15 mins of fame, then we can re-evaluate then. I would remind other commenters that this isn't about other articles or youtubers - this is about this one. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DOCUMENT★ERROR 09:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Moved here by --Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources seem legit and i know mr Franta he has quite a large fan base. and have many respected news link about him.--Uooss (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)— Uooss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - i say we keep this article Connor Franta i a recognisable person with a huge following on Youtube,Twitter and other social media he has made music, Films, Book,etc and the person who has written the article has use reliable source to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfonsa1 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC) — Alfonsa1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. I have struck the comments above of four accounts, including the creator of the article, that have been confirmed and blocked as socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Franta became notable person not only for his coming out, he is a stable part of American YouTube community and so I think Wikipedia should mention those people. The article seems to have reliable sources.--Mirkotor (talk) ,22:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep: definitley. Connor Franta deserves page just as much as one is needed, becuse he is youtube famous. he has over 3 milllion subscribers and is nearing 4 million subscribers on his youtube channel. This isnt a 15 minutes of fame thing, this is an actual fame thing. He is a vlogger, youtuber personality and having a wikipedia page is necessary. Its necessary for people to be able to google him and have a little window show up the search results with a a picture, small bio and necessary information like his age and occupation.connor franta is well known throughout the internet and youtube community, so when he is mentioned and someone doesent know who he is it is extremely necessary and convenient to have that information pop up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.62.230.2 (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confused, if you "Google" his name, and those things show up, then maybe he should have a Wikipedia page dedicated to him, not the other way around. Also See WP:NOT.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't understand why many Youtubers aren't considered notable enough. A simple Google search brings up 9,340,000 results, which is pretty large. I reckon it passes WP:Notability. AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 01:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However only 1,930 of those are "news" results, mostly just the "same" article "published" in multiple outlets. (aka AP copy). Also, "google hits" does not indicate "notability", Elbridge Gerry only gets 373,000 when doing a google search, so should we remove his page from wikiepedia? Heck if we go just on google hits, and compare just that with Elbridge Gerry, I should have a wikipedia page, I get as many google hits. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, my bad. "Connor Franta" in quotes brings up 647,000 results, but that's still a lot. As for notability, he has got "sufficiently significant attention" by the media through "independent sources" as some people have provided above. Even if it's mostly due to his recent coming out video, he has received a lot of coverage. I still think we should keep the article. AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 08:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This Page should be kept because Connor is a huge inspiration to many people especially in this generation. One of his latest videos " Life Doesn't Wait" had a big effect on many young people. Nowadays kids aren't reading books and learning poetry as much as they are on youtube searching up YouTubers!! Connor is using this as an advantage to share and explain what kids are missing on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadwa 2002 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 16:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I largely concur with Biblio's sentiments. Seems like enough direct coverage in RS to call this a keep. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought; re User:JTdale's comments. This AfD does smack a little of "anti-Tuber's"ness. NickCT (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As yet another afterthought; I'm not sure the WP:BLP1E argument holds much water. I'm seeing coverage which extends outside his having "come out" on the internet. NickCT (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If it were just the recent publicity regarding coming out this article might be WP:BLP1E, but there are earlier articles from reliable sources such as Business Insider and Adweek. See, e.g. How One Guy Used YouTube To Get Thousands Of Teens To Donate $75,000 To Charity and Connor Franta Forges Ahead in Solo Career. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the sources linked by JTDale et al. there's a great deal of coverage of his coming out video and although that makes up a majority of the sources about him, there are sufficient others to make it so WP:BLP1E is not an issue. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has received significant coverage about multiple events in multiple reliable publications. Notable. - Kollision (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per JTdale. I agree that significant coverage exists and is presented. Gage (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets the notability guideline as he has been the subject of multiple independent articles. Andise1 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2015 (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.