Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renetto (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Many of the "keep"s failed to suggest why the article should be kept in a manner consistent with the guidelines wikipedia adheres to. I have appended to comments to all arguments I to support the reasoning behind this judgement. Proto::► 14:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Renetto[edit]
Delete: Non notable Internet celebrity, last nomination for deletion resulted in Delete and not enough Google hits/notability to really count. Do we need a Wikipedia article for every other YouTube user as well? --Mentaka 00:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep relatively well known internet meme. FireSpike Editor Review! 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - YouTube star. --Oakshade 06:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest Keep ever - He is a star. --Doxent 16:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep -Not keeping him would be hypocritical.--TheBooRadley 20:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stronger than the Strongest Keep ever - He's been on TV. --24.91.83.121 04:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stronger than 24.91.83.121's Keep, Nyar Nyar Nyar. Seriously, though, this guy's popularity seems to extend beyond the Internet. -Toptomcat 18:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seriously, he barely fails WP:BIO. Yanksox 19:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete He has Google hits, but just doesn't seem that worthy of a Wikipedia article in terms of more traditional sources. Without a Guideline for notability of internet phenomena, I'm voting to delete. He drinks Cokes and belches? Big whoop. 50.000 people look at his videos? More listen to even minor radio station disc jockeys or small market UHF tv newscasters. Edison 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BIO Deli nk 20:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:BIO Bec-Thorn-Berry 20:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - This person seems to have more then one non-trivial mentions in actual media... see the article for the links. However, he does fail the "will anyone care in 10 years" test. ---J.S (T/C) 01:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This fits into the same general category as whats-his-name the blogger that ignited such a problem recently on AfD. I agree with Edison - without any guidelines whatsoever on internet phenomena, we have to apply the existing guidelines stringently and I don't think he passes any of them. So, delete.--Dmz5 02:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep user who nominated this deletion is new, has no idea of its traffic and edit count. There are Google hits, and rising. All the sources are online ones, some may be delinked, but I don't have the time to source any offline source, such as newspaper reports, TV/Radio interviews etc. We could work on that. In the meantime it looks looking like a unanimous keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrummerThanThou (talk • contribs) 12 December 2006
- Delete. Being a youtube star doesn't confer encyclopedic notability. Slideshow Bob 13:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. This is one of the quirky little articles that make Wikipedia interesting, plus he has some rather heavy hitters like Y&R taking an interest. - Lucky 6.9 01:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep YouTube popularity certainly counts as notable. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The nominator's sudden, unexplained change of heart [1], combined with their recent contribution history (and a 24-hour block for such) makes me think that this was just trolling. Should probably be allowed to run its course, though, given that there are a number of delete opinions here. WarpstarRider 02:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a good resource for people who've seen this guy all over youtube and want to get a summary of who he is. Lyo 03:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Like all popular internet anything that isn't controversial, it's very difficult to get reported on outside the internet, and yet Renetto seems to at least have been mentioned in several magazines and news articles. Just check the "List of internet phenomenon" pages, and you'll find several items that can't even claim that much, yet have pages dedicated to them. cableshaft 20:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability is evidenced by verifiable and non-trivial media coverage. Yamaguchi先生
- Delete non-noteable. Davidpdx 10:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep We have articles for every obscure cable TV show that's ever existed, as well as ones that don't exist YET. That's more notable than a YouTube channel with millions of views, how exactly? Simply because it's on the boob tube rather than an internet media? If Wikipedia is going to cover pop culture topics at all the anti-internet crusade needs to stop. 71.252.177.83 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep A decent article and it is, in fact, notable. Xizer 19:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Noteable celebrity and famous YouTube broadcaster, appeared on the news, is an inventor, owns a shop, and could be going places in the near future in which we could expand this article. Haramzadi 05:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Millions of views and ties with the youtube founders, appeared on tv, also a notable inventor. If internet meme's are going to be listed on this site (like star wars kid), extremely popular personalities should also be represented. --24.203.39.252 01:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured on Fox News--203.109.209.49 05:45, 18 December 2006 (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.