- JonTron (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This article was deleted following a discussion closed on 11 April 2014. I feel there is a case for reinstating this article per clause 3 of Wikipedia:Deletion review ("significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page").
I have raised this with the deleting administrator, The Bushranger, but unfortunately he is on hiatus from Wikipedia.
The quoted reason for the deletion was the absence of evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I've collected together some sources that I feel met these criteria. I've set these out below for consideration.
- The Michigan Daily [1]: refers to JonTron as a "YouTube gaming celebrit[y]".
- Kinja [2]: refers to JonTron's role as a voice actor for the video game "A Hat in Time".
- Mishka NYC [3]: a lengthy article on JonTron that refers to a number of notable elements, including his involvement with Game Grumps, his founding of the venerable website Normal Boots, and his media partnership with Amazon.com.
- MAGFest [4]: refers to JonTron's attendance at MAGFest in 2013 and his then-1.3 million YouTube followers.
- Kotaku [5]: a lengthy article that describes JonTron's involvement in the GAME_JAM reality show, which itself attracted considerable attention [6].
- Kotaku [7]: a lengthy article on JonTron's departure from Game Grumps, which again received considerable attention.
- VGFacts [8]: refers to JonTron being referenced in the video game "DLC Quest" - not in itself hugely notable, but it does reinforce his status as a web personality.
Taken together, I believe these sources (which are by no means exhaustive) represent "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Additionally, I think it's important to note that personalities whose careers have been built around new media will inevitably have garnered less coverage in traditional sources than those working on more conventional mediums, so Wikipedia's typical approach to sourcing may verge on being overly prescriptive when applied inflexibly here. On this basis, I would like to request that the page protection be lifted allowing for the recreation of the article to community standards. McPhail (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation - I'm not 100% convinced by the sources. I'd like to see more like Kotaku (significant coverage) and less like the Michigan Daily (name-check only). I understand the nom's reasons for including the latter, though. One is traditional print media and the other is a niche-market magazine, though my understanding is that Kotaku is considered a reliable source. But I digress - the list provided suggests that the individual in question has been the subject of at least some coverage since the last discussion (note: which wasn't an AFD). The question of whether or not it is enough coverage (taken in combination with whatever was available pre-AFD, like the Kotaku source) is a matter for AFD, not for DRV. So I'd be inclined to allow recreation, with the understanding that it can always be (and will most likely be) nominated for deletion if it isn't up to scratch. St★lwart111 00:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse nothing here that would overturn three AFDs that all ended in deletion. Brief mentions in not-very-reliable sources, etc. For example, the Kotaku article about "game jam" mentions him twice, and the Wired article on the same subject doesn't mention him even once. Nothing here to build a BLP article around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- More sources - Here a few more sources that constitute significant coverage (with varying strength of reliability): TubeFilter interview for 1M subscribers, Kotaku articles and a Destructoid one about individual content produced by JonTron, WatchMojo's Top 10 Youtube Reviewers, Crave's 7 Awesome Youtube Gamers You Should Watch, his involvement with NormalBoots, which produces DYKG. I am an editor and an administrator and I would be more than willing to actively work on the article to make sure it complies with Wikipedia's standards -- in fact, I was working on recreating it anyways in the near future (in a way that avoids G4 eligibility, of course). IMO JonTron is not significantly less notable than several other similar subjects on who we have established articles, such as Ross O'Donovan or Cosmo Wright. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - As this is the same ol' case of trying to stitch up a pile of name-drops and casual coverage into a reliable source argument. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, despite the bombardment of low quality sources. I see no point in allowing restoration when it will almost certainly be dispatched at AFD again. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep deleted; coverage is trivial mentions and several of the sources are mediocre. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Established, good faith editors want to work on this article and there are new sources the AfD didn't consider. That used to be enough for us at DRV, and it ought to be enough still ---- there's nothing in WP:DRVPURPOSE about stopping good faith editors from writing content. All we ought to do is make sure this isn't an attempt to do an end-run around the most recent AfD. So I differ from my colleagues above and feel we should allow creation of an article.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have no objection to a well-sourced, solid draft being created by an established, good-faith editor and presented for consideration. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are these actual new sources though? They seem to be mostly quick mentions of stuff that happened before the last AFD, and were part of the available body of sources at the time. I'm definitely not seeing any kind of major leap forward in notability/verifiability between mid-2014 and now that would justify overturning THREE AFD consensuses for yet another round. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fair point, and I think this turns on whether you treat the article as a BLP or not. If it's a BLP then I'd have to agree that I've yet to see the kind of sourcing we usually like. But this is really an article about a Youtube account... I can't tell the guy's name or date of birth or anything else about him. So I take the view that it isn't a BLP. Stifle's right to suggest working on it in draft/user space, though; that might be an approach we can all get behind?—S Marshall T/C 23:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's absurd. Accounts don't create themselves, this article is about a person who is a youtube user, it is not about the account itself. WP:BLP applies here, absolutely. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm baffled by this comment, as I really can't see any way this could not be considered a BLP. Using a pen name of sorts certainly doesn't make it not a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The deleted article was definitely about the person, not just his account. It began "[real name] (born [birthdate]), more prominently known by his internet pseudonym, JonTron, is an American internet personality.", for instance. —Cryptic 05:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would an admin kindly undelete the article and talk page so we can see what we are dealing with here? Valoem talk contrib 00:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
