Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ph1LzA

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ph1LzA[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)

Contested PROD. The article lists two sources about the same event, one from the BBC and another from Mincraft.net. I managed to find two additional sources; one recently from PC Mag and another from Gamepur which lists him as one of the top 10 minecraft twitch streamers but only gives about a paragraph of treatment. I can't find any other sources, and they all seem to be about one particular event. I'm not particularly familiar with how the GNG applies to Twitch streamers, but it seems the subject may not be notable. — Wug·a·po·des 23:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets the GNG as far as I'm aware. Ph1LzA is quite well known in the entire Minecraft commmunity and competes in Minecraft tournaments with his associated acts, and they often have high profiled YouTubers and Streamers included in there as well. (MineCraft Championship) This page does NOT need deletion from what I can see about the guidelines, there are reliable sources posted, most of his own social media pages. Two articles from two high profiled media/game platforms. It has been peer reviewed by IanBealio (Wikipedia page made, told to Ph1LzA Ian confirming it's accurate and true.), who edited my grammar and is a close friend of Ph1LzA, which is hard to prove but people in Ph1LzA's community know that he is. I do not see why this page needs to be deleted when he is a note-worthy person. Ian edited my spelling mistakes/improved on the general grammar.— User:Muted Oreo 10:07, 4 July 2020 (CEST)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Wug·a·po·des 23:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Wug·a·po·des 23:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable person failing WP:GNG/WP:NCREATIVE with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources. The BBC source is focused on WP:1EVENT and most content is by the person themselves. PC Mag source is better and less reliant on the single event, although there's a lot of reliance on person's quotes. The listicle article isn't in-depth. That gives marginal 2 sources that came about from one event, which is not enough for GNG. Being known or famous is not notability criteria. Article being factual or accurate is not notability criteria either. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hellknowz said it best. Poor sourcing and doesn't meet notability by any means. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 04:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Weak sourcing at best, not much notability either. Only sources I found were just mainly single events. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and we might want to offer a guideline for editorial clarity. There's a lot of these types of articles that are created when a YouTuber is mentioned in a longer article about the YouTube gamer scene, with one or two brief mentions. Then a bunch of WP:OR is added that is sourced to YouTube itself, effectively using Wikipedia articles as a type of promotion. This is a textbook example of someone leveraging the barest of coverage into an encyclopedia article for their promotion. Jontesta (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2020 (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.