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.

Snowball keep. Non-admin closure. ¨victor falk 09:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)[edit]

This individual is not notable per WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS, he is not a celebrity, he just has a few videos on you tube, he is not even in the Top 10. No historical context. Transwiki to Wikinews maybe. Also serious WP:OWN issues as it seems he is editing this article about himself. The article is full of bias and original research also. It is way too long and filled with way too much trivia. I say delete this self promotional mess. Myheartinchile (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article has 90 sources, many from major media; what more notability do you need? If an article is too long, has original research, etc. then it needs cleanup, not to be deleted entirely. He's received significant media coverage that it wouldn't make sense to transfer to Wikinews. I'd almost say this should be a speedy close. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and address the article's WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV issues separately. I see your point in regards to WP:NOTNEWS, but Crocker is just too prominent in popular culture to be ignored. I do think there is lasting historical value here, in that this is an iconic example of the YouTube phenomenon. When Time magazine named "You" as the PotY, they were talking about phenomena like this. (Speedy Keep is not out of the question here) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment, i do believe there is some notability here, but he should be used as an example of the "you tube phenomenon" at YouTube or viral video. You should take into account what a splash Tricia Walsh-Smith made on you tube, but her article has long since been deleted too. 90 sources prove verifiability NOT notability. As for speedy keep, I believe there is a reason this has been listed for deletion twice before, including one without consensus; that fact makes it obvious that many people believe this article should in fact be deleted. I think a merge is possible as a compromise and would meet all the issues you have brought up. his very article title has inherent bias, he is not a celebrity by a longshot as he is not widely known or famous, even on the internet.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, 90 sources provide media coverage AND verafiability. The previous nod for deletion was right after the Britney video and the main issue was whether or not he was notable at that point. That was about nine months ago; he has since received more coverage. I don't even know who Tricia is, but WP:WAX states that just because one was deleted does not mean another should be. And, sorry to sound rude, but a compromise has nothing to do with the deletion criteria for articles (You also may want to see WP:IHATEIT).IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and attend to said issues per Jaysweet. It needs work, but the subject does not fail notability, as he has appeared in third-party, published sources and has been referenced in the media several times (and parodied in a couple instances, as well). Crocker is plently notable in YouTube phenomena. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep If it ever applied to any article at all, notability is not temporary absolutely applies here. Article meets WP:NOTE in abundance. The nom brings forth content issues which are innapproriate for AfD. This article needs cleanup, but is not WP:HOPELESS. Jim Miller (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'comment the sources are largely from you tube and odd news items that mention him in passing. what are those third party sources, point them out please.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply Here goes: from the current version of the page, and only of the ones in English, the ones that meet WP:RS and establish notability would be ref #'s 5, 8, 10, 12, 17, 21, 22, and 76. Multiple non-trivial mentions, and that jewelry fraud thing precludes WP:BLP1E from consideration. Jim Miller (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SNOW; like it or not, this guy is notable (with reliable secondary sources) and a celebrity in his own right. --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep. The YouTube cites are of Crocker's own work and are used to illustrate his vlogging, relaible sourcing covers the rest. He may not be everyone's favorite person but notability has been established so I don't like it would seem to apply here. The article has been a vandal-magnet from the beginning and almost every concern raised on the talk pages had been civilly addressed, even the repeated questions and drive-by comments. The article isn't going away so you may want to make peace with that. Banje boi 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rightly or wrongly, he has become a legitimate celebrity, and as such is notable. Think what you will about Chris Crocker, but the guy is no dummy, he knows how to market himself. --Eastlaw (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Loads of reliable sources to establish notability; case closed. — brighterorange (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep bad faith nom. JuJube (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (taken from my post on the article's talk page) He did make headlines not just in the United State but also most of the Worlds News outlets (Not just the internet but newspapers and TV). Bidgee (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep per the article itself. Notable, sourced, etc. Third time this has been AfD'ed. 71.195.135.161 (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Crocker is, for better or worse, clearly notable and has been the subject of multiple, substantial coverage in the mainstream media. There is not reasonable argument that he fails to meet WP:N. This should not have been nominated for deletion. Gwernol 07:21, 6 June 2008 (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.