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. Clear consensus is keep, keep voters also present better arguments. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daddyofive[edit]

Daddyofive (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)

The article seems promotional using phrases such as "has seen great success", and their only notability is due to the outrage over their videos and ensuing losing custody of their children. I am not exactly seeing the notability here. Andise1 (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep – The first issue can easily be rectified without deleting the entire page. The second might warrant the page being renamed to focus on the controversy (and rewritten accordingly), since you yourself have acknowledged that the controversy itself is notable (there are several newspaper articles cited in the article itself). V2Blast (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yet another YouTuber who got their fame through stupid means. Channel doesn't exist now, their fame is gone and though the controversy is definitely notable the subject is not on their own. Also have concerns due to the child subject involved in said 'pranks'. Nate • (chatter) 03:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG. The subject is now equated with the controversy, the name "DaddyOFive" even clearly in the title of the references. So I see no need to rename except perhaps to fix to uppercase OF. Any other concerns can be addressed by editing. -- œ^™ 23:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The latest source (CraveOnline) is from May 25, talking about how parents continue to exploit their kids despite the D05 controversy http://www.craveonline.com/design/1267451-daddyofive-controversy-hasnt-stopped-youtube-parents-using-kids-cash - This shows continued commentary on the issue WhisperToMe (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it is somehow a good idea to repeat internet accusations and innuendo in our encyclopedia? For the record, we already had Draft:Daddyofive and DaddyOFive (two iterations). Pinging previously involved admins DGG, C.Fred, CambridgeBayWeather. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's rare that internet accusations lead to analyses of the situation in major newspapers in the US and UK (if you like I can assemble sources). A custody loss occurred so there were consequences to the controversy. Having said that you have to be very careful not to cross lines covering this subject. There are many possible complications. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not me. I am all for deleting this thing. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as much as I can't stand the bloke and what he's done, he is notable for his acts and there are many, many references scattered through the internet, and as such, he quite clearly meets GNGs. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 10:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sufficient press coverage of this professional YouTuber to fulfill GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2017 (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.