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 speedy keep. Speedy Keep per #1, nominator withdrawn and no other argument for deletion brought forward. Copyvio/clean-up already being discussed on the talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Update: After a review of additional sources, I can see why many editors believe this may meet the notability guidelines. That said, if we move toward a speedy keep on this article, we will need to decide what to do about the plagiarism and material not reliably sourced. Nick Pascal (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails notability requirements. This BLP describes an individual who streams live video of himself playing video games. While he apparently has a prominent role in the video game streaming community, he has not been documented in reliable sources to any extensive degree. Much of the article prose is not properly sourced or is non-encyclopedic in tone. Further delete explanation: The article has a few proper sources, but most of them are links to the subject's Youtube channel. Large chunks of the article are promotional. That is not in itself enough to delete, but having looked at the sources in total, I believe Mr. Wright falls just outside the notability requirements at this time. Upon further research, much of the article in its present state is lifted word-for-word from [1]. This could qualify for a speedy deletion under WP:COPYVIO since the second paragraph under the "Early Life" heading, and the first under "Speed running" are word-for-word copies of that site, while several other portions of the page appear to be close paraphrase. Nick Pascal (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you've read WP:CSD#G12 thoroughly? Two sections (which were not introduced to the article until a while after its creation) that violate WP:CV do not automatically make an article meet G12. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 22:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, of course. I originally nominated the article over notability concerns, however I was looking at the sources again after other editors disagreed, and I found that the vast majority of the article is plagiarized. I am concerned that simply moving a few words around does not meet Wikipedia policies on original content. Nick Pascal (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Currently suffering from COPYVIO. Comparison: Time of writing, Current. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 22:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Significant coverage in sources considered reliable and independent; subject seems to meet WP:GNG. References include major sources Polygon, Wired, Kotaku, Daily Dot. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with most content issues presented in the nomination but clean-up doesn't equal deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Cosmo has received significant coverage from such major sites such as Wired and the Daily Dot. The youtube sources are only used in some cases to verify run records. I think Cosmo is notable enough to warrant a page due to the massive following he has and his trailblazing in the Speedrun Community as well as being an example of earning money through the internet in unique ways.Hamza725 (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources will be improved, I'm still working on the article Thehack771 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I agree with the content issues I am surprised by the amount of dedicated coverage Cosmo has received. I was expecting those sources to just mention him in passing but they gave significant attention to him, and I feel as though the amount of coverage he has received, in addition to his undoubtedly important role in expanding the niche speedrunning community more into the mainstream makes him notable.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are adequate sources to ensure proper notability. I've added tags for clean-up to help encourage editors to assist in solidifying and establishing CosmoWright's notability. Per WP:BLP and WP:NOTE, along with WP practices of helping to nurture and improve rather than immediately jump to shut down, the least we can do is allow the editors and page creator ample time to establish notability and improve the article. This was made without the help of reviewers and as such, will require a bit of time to iron out the edges. Additionally, I will lend my assistance in establishing notability. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 04:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Throwing in my two cents, if he was the founder of SpeedRunsLive and is a prominent community member, that definitely is more notable than just a random person on the internet. Stylistic issues are one of the biggest concerns here, and changing it would be a project for anyone who wants to help out. NicatronTg (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and propose that this article be stubified back to a lead statement with only supporting reliable sources as the content after the lead is almost entirely unsourced. See talk Flat Out let's discuss it 05:02, 30 January 2014 (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.