Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cassell (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. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cassell[edit]

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

WP:BLP article that does not meet WP:ENT nor WP:CREATIVE, only sources are WP:PRIMARY Tgeairn (talk) 21:57, 1 October 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) 23:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator. PrairieKid (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite an intruded line about Syndicate, now reverted, the previous AfD was for a different person. AllyD(talk) 06:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I do not see how some one who has 5 million subscribers is not noteworthy, when other similar youtubers do have pages. I understand the fact that page is not well sourced, but I don't have the time to add the sources, maybe you could help instead of trying to get the page deleted. GingerGeek (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 5 million is significant supported by WP:ENT "Has a large fan base". WP:GNG per two sources Daily Mirror and The Sunday Times. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage in the Miror, Sunday Times and BBC are significant and feature Cassells as the primary topic meeting the requirement of multiple reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I find it hard to believe that a fan-base on utube can be the basis for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube stardom is a real thing.[1][2][3] They can make big revenue it's a legitimate media channel. People like Cassell shouldn't be confused with viral hits of cats and most other amateur stuff on YouTube. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, expected that I would be !voting delete wen I pulled up this AFD, because most articles on "Youtube celebrities" fail our notability guidelines. But this one appears to be an exception as he has actually garnered sufficient coverage (at least in my opinion) to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has 5m subscribers on Youtube and is one of the only top 30 subscribers not to have a page. Also, featured in national newspapers and televison news. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.73.104 (talk)
Keep I also thought that a Youtube channel for videogame commentary/playthroughs would be non-notable, but coverage by the Sunday Times CBBC and BBC of his making money as a youtube entertainer fits comfortably into WP:ENT.Eggishorn (talk) 00:33, 8 October 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.