Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JonTron

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 delete. Mkdw ^talk 02:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JonTron[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Original version contained no real sources, just YouTube links, and the present version none at all. Googling for this person unearths only blogospheric stuff. PROD contested by IP without explanation. Favonian (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I really like the guy and am a huge fan of GameGrumps, but I just cannot see how it would be notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think Jon is notable enough to have his own lage. Gamegrumps has a big fanabse and people are even drawing fanart of Jon Egoraptor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.38.229 (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there reliable sources that help him meet Wikipedia's standard for notability? I can't help but notice that both "Gamegrumps" and "Egoraptor" are both redlinks in the article; so that's probably not a good argument for notability... Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. Fails basic criteria for WP:BIO. WANI (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks the sources needed to meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable one day, perhaps. But not yet. 210.7.71.114 (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel he has a good enough following to be classified as notable Pureownege75 (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources at all for the article. We should not have areticles without sources. If we want wikipedia to ever be reliable and respected, that is the absolute bare minimum, delete all articles that lack sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No point removing this page when it'll be up again eventually. All the facts are stated within his youtube videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.173.213 (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid reason to keep it. If it gets recreated, we'll delete it again. If it keeps being recreated, we can WP:SALT it. No one so far has been able to supply any Youtube videos that would constitute as reliable, third party sources either... Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should just add him to the Youtube personalities page until he becomes more well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.154.248 (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2013 (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.