Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheOdd1sOut (2nd nomination)

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. It is not solid, but I am satisfied that a rough consensus exists to keep this. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheOdd1sOut[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)

Was deleted in September and was endorsed at deletion review. The original AfD had some IP socking going on. I declined the draft in November for being substantially similar (I participated in the deletion review and the page looked very familiar.) It was moved out of draftspace by a new editor earlier today, I'm not sure if it was still at AfC or not from the history. I checked the diffs between the version which was moved and it was almost the same as the edition I declined at AfC. I tagged with a WP:G4 which was removed by Szzuk (talk · contribs) saying this needed to go to AfD. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I still think it qualifies for WP:G4. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I removed the CSD tag because the first AfD wasn't a categorical outcome. I'm neutral. Szzuk (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add. Referring to the first AfD; if you remove the votes of the IP editors and the 'Per above' vote then the simple vote count from established editors is 3 Delete and 3 Keep. I just don't think this is CSD territory. Szzuk (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD went to deletion review and was endorsed there, and this is a substantially similar article. I just don't know why WP:G4 wouldn't apply here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per my watchlist, the article under consideration was just moved back to draftspace. Unsure of what the proper next step is. SportingFlyer T·C 04:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has been moved back per my request at WP:RM/TR. Given that he is a web comedian there may be more issues. Szzuk (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Moved back. Technically, moving it is allowed (WP:AFDEQ), but I moved it back to allow the discussion to continue. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: Thanks, I saw that but wasn't sure if it included moving to draft space. SportingFlyer T·C 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? Or draft it if needed. The subject does meet notability guidelines, being covered by Rare, Market Insider, Publisher's Weekly, Collider (reliable?), Fansided, Slate, not to mention the coverage of the most recent YouTube Rewind which he took part in. Notability is there, though the article doesn't look particularly good, what with all the unreliable and primary sources. Certainly not a speedy situation. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with this being moved back to draftspace. It's definitely a speedy situation, though, because it's substantially similar to the version that was deleted only a couple months ago. Also, the Market Insider source is a press release, Culturess/Fansided is just a list, Slate is more about the author of the subject than the subject. I don't think notability is clear. SportingFlyer T·C 22:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources seem good enough, and his videos can always be cited. unsigned comment added by ANDREWs13 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to TheOdd1sOut as he is known more by his online name rather than his real name. As well, the original article was titled with his online name. Handoto (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Look that other Wikipedia's articles about YouTubers are titled by their real name (e.g. its Alex Clark: Alex Clark (animator)). Also, this is Wikipedia articule, not your private blog, so stop acting like boss of this page. Polski Robert (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey buddy, look at PewDiePie, Jacksepticeye, Markiplier, RiceGum, MrBeast, iDubbbz, h3h3Productions, JonTron, etc. These are all YouTubers not titled by their real name because they are very well known by their Internet pseudonyms. The same applies here. As well, each time this article was created, it was created by the name TheOdd1sOut and there has already been a discussion on moving the page to his real name. I've also had to remove disruptive edits you make to the page. This is not your blog, so leave it to the community. Handoto (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well sorry that I wrote "I created this page and have no idea what the heck happened to it [...]". Oh wait, that was you. So don't call me bloger, because you are acting like it was your private page. Polski Robert (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you want to keep discussing, let's please move this to my talk page, so we don't cluster the discussion here. The page formatting was incorrect at the time. Handoto (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The subject does meet notability guidelines, and the sources are good. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't commented on the sources/this passing WP:GNG since I nominated this as a technical WP:G4 deletion, but suffice to say I think WP:G4 still applies without any significant improvement to the sourcing that would get it past WP:GNG. I have no idea how you'd close this one, so good luck to the closer! SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At the time that this was recreated it was certainly similar enough to the deleted version for a G4 speedy deletion. Now it is (just, in my view) different enough to warrant discussion at AfD, so I think whether or not it could have been deleted as a G4 is now moot. --Michig (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Undid my closure per the nominator's request on the talk page that he wants this to be either relisted or closed by an administrator. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have had a look at the sources here, and they do not seem to include substantive discussion of the subject in reliable independent verifiable published sources. References that show he is his mom's son (notability is not inherited), references to his high school newspaper, references to his twitter account, references to his Youtube channel ratings, and the occasional altogether dead link (iFunny and Crixeo— if this article had recently been genuinely rewritten, why are there dead links already?) do not paint a picture of real world notability. The "keep" votes would do well to point specifically at which sources they believe certify the subject as notable. I do not see them, and what I do see is much too thin to qualify. A loose noose (talk) 21:04, 2 February 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.