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 to delete, default to keep. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Guy with the Glasses

[edit]

Internet celebrity for whom very little evidence of said notability could be found. 63 distinct Google hits for hios most famous creation[1], most (if not all- from forums, blogs, youtube, .... No reliable sources, news reports, ... Similar results for his other claim to notability[2] No evidence could be found that any WP:RS has ever commented on this celebrity, or that he meets WP:NOTE. Fram (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient coverage by reliable independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I got 58.800Google hits on "nostalgia critic" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.176.199.204 (talk • contribs)
- ...which aren't that impressive in terms of reliability. WillOakland (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 134.176.199.204 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep, but significantly restructure it. I also got a significant amount of Google hits for "Nostalgia Critic." He is notable enough to have been interviewed by reliable sources, such as Revision3[3], Cory Lemay[4] and The Game Heroes[5].--Brad M. (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep, I am changing my vote to a keep from Redirect, as long as the NC's cites the aforementioned links from Brad, which seem to offer enough material to make a small, yet substantial article. The article needs some work, but looks salvageable. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 00:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per NawlinWiki's comment.--Boffob (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell, he fails to meet criteria for inclusion. He seems to get a lot of traction in the blogs and on lots of minor sites, but that isn't the policy. As for the 3 "reliable sources" listed above, 1 is his own website and the other 2 are questionable as passing wp:rs as independent sources (one is broke right now) PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 23:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the link to the original source of that interview on Handsom Tom's Youtube channel [6] which should put that concern to rest. Now to your issues with reliability. Wikipedia thought Revision3, Martin Sargent, Internet Superstar were notable enough to have articles for each of them. And Cory Lemay is a reliable indpendent source, I would reccommend a google search to verify that for yourself.--Brad M. (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notable is not the same thing as being a reliable source. Myspace and Blogger.com are other examples of notable sites that are not reliable sources. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 00:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sources I provided are reliable as well.--Brad M. (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... sorta. While not as famous as, say, The Angry Video Game Nerd, he should still have an article, just not as expansive, since he is a rather minor, but important, internet celebrity.
Note The afd notice has been removed from the page by an anon user. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:48, 7 November 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.