Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VoiceoverPete (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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VoiceoverPete[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)

Participants in the previous discussion did not address the WP:BLP1E concerns. Yes, there are several articles about him because of his Fiverr ban. But that's it. The rest are self-published sources. An editor asserted that Pete would probably gain continued coverage, but he did not. I recommend a redirect to Fiverr#Criticism. wumbolo ^^^ 09:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hi Wumbolo, there seems to be no legitimate reason for deletion in this AfD. In terms of the the WP:BLP1E concerns, VoiceoverPete is not notable for only one event. He is now a YouTuber in his own right with around 1 Million subscribers, just like any other listed on Wikipedia. His article is currently a stub which users can help expand with details of his involvement in PewDiePie vs T-Series, his consistent collaborations with Grandayy and other memers, and any other details of his online career deemed suitable for his article. Stewartmurdock (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per previous discussion. 142.222.98.158 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

— 142.222.98.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete There is almost nothing substantial in any RS about this person. The previous AFD is irrelevant and I'm in agreement with the nom. Praxidicae (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes this article could be improved, but how can there be a legitimate reason to delete when the consensus was to keep in the previous discussion on 1 February 2019. Unoc (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very easily. Consensus can change. wumbolo ^^^ 11:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Previous discussions are never prejudicial to AfD outcomes; their content can be referenced, of course. There is no evidence of independent notability. A significant number of Google hits and YouTube popularity are perhaps traits of real-life notability. But Wikipedia has its own rules and guidelines about notability of persons. -The Gnome (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give time to reach consensus, which is far from clear at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first discussion had already discussed WP:BLP1E. There are more sources that can be added to this and we shouldn't base his notability off what is currently used in this article. Handoto (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Handoto. You're an early, major contributor to the contested article. So why don't you go ahead and put more such sources in the article? If this could be done before the AfD process is over, it could affect its outcome. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEXIST we should not hold articles hostage to adding more references. Nominators and opinionators should check if sources exist, not if references are in the article. gidonb (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V we shouldn't have BLPs indefinitely awaiting sources and the primary difference between what you and I cite is that one is a policy and the other is a guideline. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and please read WP:BURDEN re:Nominators and opinionators should check if sources exist, not if references are in the article. The deletes here are on the basis that there aren't sufficient sources to support it's inclusion, so the onus is on those that want to keep it, to provide them. Praxidicae (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only 45 days between uncontested closure as keep and new nomination. gidonb (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets basic WP:GNG. I see additional sources that has not been used. What is notable in real life should be notable on Wikipedia so long as such notability can be proved, and that includes YouTube. How many times have we seen personalities rise from the likes of YouTube to become independently notable in their own right?--AfPEN (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well if he "rises to notability", then we can have an article. But we don't keep articles on the basis that someone, some day might become notable. Praxidicae (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2019 (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.