Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foo Conner

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changed to no consensus per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 12. Sandstein 06:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foo Conner

[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)

Fails WP:JOURNALIST or WP:ANYBIO. Even as a YouTuber with over 60million views there's still not enough a reliable source, just being a youtube personality with 60M view doesn't assert notability. Fails WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. I also found self published sources from Jekko. Lapablo (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for your input. I am new to Wikipedia. My contributions are WP:IMPERFECT. As such I am open to guidance. My current aim is to improve Pittsburgh Museums and Media in Pittsburgh. My latest article is on the Pittsburgh Current.

Two major newspapers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania wrote feature columns on Conner. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Northside Chronicle (Pittsburgh). These were the primary sources I used in the creation of this article. Conner has mentions across the Pittsburgh media landscape including: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Pittsburgh Quarterly, Pittsburgh City Paper. This shows that he fulfills WP:JOURNALIST and WP:RS #1.

Your proposal for deletion seems to hang on his YouTube career. I agree his YouTube presence doesn't stand alone, but at ~600k subscribers it does deserve a mention. And that's what it gets - a mention.

I have removed the Jekko sources. The two articles in question were Conner's coverage of Presidents Obama and Trump. They merely served as the fact he had covered them. Coming from traditional media, I had found it credible he covers presidential visits without the backing of an established news agency.

The difficulty in covering Conner is definitely the disjointed nature of his career. In the future we can reorganize this article and add to it. Popscreenshot (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Popscreenshot is the creator of the article and that the picture he uploaded to the page was said to be "own work" and is also being considered for deletion. There's a possible COI here. Lapablo (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image was flagged because of this nomination. The issues are tied. To respond to the possible COI allegation, as a former Pittsburgh journalist I frequently ran across Conner. I would not classify us as friends. I was not paid or asked to create this article. I believe I edited this article in good faith. That said, I welcome an requests to edit. Popscreenshot (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reluctantly agree that this person passes WP:GNG and article is sourced well Gristleking (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only additional input beyond the nominator and the creator was CU blocked, so let's try for some more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He passes WP:GNG. Could be reread by an independent wikipedian for COI control. FIFAukr (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2019 (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.