Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Edinger

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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Edinger[edit]

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

Already tagged for notability. The sources include a BBC interview and 21 of his tweets - don't believe this meets WP:RS. Non notable you tuber IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only decent source is the BBC interview, but that isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG IMO. PC78 (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of notability concerns, I am worried that User:Gbawden nominated this article for speedy deletion. In my view this article unquestionably does not meet the strict criteria at WP:A7. A7 state "An article about a real person...that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" and "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines" - being a YouTuber having received high level BBC coverage and having more than 150,000 is a credible claim to significance, irrespective of meeting the stricter criteria at WP:GNG. Speedy, which prevents community input, should only be for the most unambiguous cases. AusLondonder (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we can assume good faith and discuss the article rather than the nominator? PC78 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not failing to assume good faith. I am not arguing the nom acted in bad faith, rather with a lack of competence. AusLondonder (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Couple of BBC sources now and YouTube related sources as well, including Ten Eighty magazine which seems relatively high-quality. AusLondonder (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's got 2 BBC sources now, a mention in mashable, and quite enough coverage and subscribers to denote notability. TwinTelepathy (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed. Seems like enough solid sources to establish WP:GNG Roguebluejay (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - Enough sources to pass WP:GNG. The prose does not have much to go with but the BBC and the Ten Eighty coverage make a good case for keeping this. Certainly, more facts can be added to the prose. — Yash! ^(Y) 04:18, 30 September 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.