Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oli White

:{{la|Oli White}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oli_White Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Oli White}})

This has already been deleted a couple of times (via BLP PROD); a speedy was declined by {{U|C.Fred}} because [http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/11/meeting-oli-white-what-its-like-be-famous-youtube-vlogger_n_7559480.html this one article] was supplied. But in addition to that, there's not much else, besides stuff like [http://teneightymagazine.com/2015/05/30/teneighty-meets-oli-white/ this], another shout-out on a blog (not an RS or a notable publication, as far as I can tell). In other words, trivial mentions, not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: Give it a chance to un-stub. Checkingfax (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Sorry, I don't know what that means. You have every opportunity, certainly for the next seven days, to add reliable sources to the article to prove the subject's notability. At any rate, this discussion is here for you to argue that the subject is notable. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Along those lines, I need to point out that this article had been created in April and June, and it was deleted both times as an expired PROD BLP (no reliable sources found). The article is making progress, in that there's at least one source now (which is why I declined CSD A7); however, since the original creation in April, somebody has had five months to look for reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• See: WP:ATD for alternatives to deletion. Checkingfax (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - I see no reliable sources that are not just trivial mentions. There will always be a fair amount of information available online about any popular YouTuber, but sources must be reliable and at least somewhat substantial to meet Wikipedia's criteria. I think that there are currently not enough reliable sources mentioning White to warrant an article, and I have no prejudice about the article existing if more reliable sources can be found or are made. With regards to giving the article a chance to be expanded, the opportunity is there and waiting. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

::User:Thine Antique Pen. With the greatest respect, I actually cannot believe you nominated this article for speedy deletion. Have you read WP:A7? How could you seriously, possibly think this meets the strict criteria given to exclude community discussion? AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

:::{{re|AusLondonder}} I think that you've slightly misinterpreted the situation, and yes, I have read WP:CSD. I did A7 the article shortly after its creation, after I had done a quick search about White; this search brought up a number of social media links and I did not dig any further, wrongly presuming White to be "just another YouTuber". Upon the discovery of the Huffington Post article, A7 did not apply whatsoever as significance was now demonstrated, and discussion would be the only solution. I admit that I was erroneous to not look further, although I stand by my rationale here about the notability of White, and consider these newly unearthed mentions of White to not demonstrate notability. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

::No worries, I respect your honesty. AusLondonder (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep I have added a number of other sources to the article. Regarding Ten Eighty magazine I generally find it a WP:RS regarding YouTube and non-tabloid in style. AusLondonder (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I have now added sources from Marketing magazine, The Guardian, Huffington Post, Ten Eighty magazine and Charity Today. I question, therefore, if the nom User:Drmies, followed WP:BEFORE in searching for sources, prior to stating "there's not much else" and "trivial mentions, not notable by our standards"? I also wonder if the other delete voters above tried to find sources? AusLondonder (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks a lot, pal. Surely you had a look at WP:AGF in the few months you've been with us. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• The references you added (and that did not show up when I searched Google, thank you very much) from The Guardian and the marketing magazine establish that White is one of two people hired by McDonalds to do some advertising on YouTube. That by itself does not make for notability, and the problem is that neither of the sources actually discuss White--they just name him. Same with the cancer stuff: he is mentioned as one of a bunch of people, with no discussion of him and what he's doing. Plus, that's reported by Cancer Research UK, not by an independent source. In other words, what we have here are a few more mentions--not in-depth discussion. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

::In what way did I accuse you of bad faith? I simply asked a question. I certainly would not suggest you are being careless with the truth, but it does seem strange that these sources appeared only to me. AusLondonder (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)\

:::If you had been in as many AfD discussion as I, you would not be surprised by that, not at all. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

::Regarding WP:AGF, I certainly have read it. I am sure you've read it recently, before invoking it, because the page states "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of such" AusLondonder (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete for now simply to wait for a better article so feel free to draft and userfy. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

::Not a valid reason for deletion, User:SwisterTwister. AusLondonder (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

:::{{U|AusLondonder}} I would think so as WP:TNT because although the article is currently sourced and could be worse, it could be better and I would rather wait for the "better" to come. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

:::Per WP:TNT "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints". AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt as per above non notable youtuber, The sources are IMHO pretty weak and my searches come up with nothing but mentions, I suggest Salting as it's been created & deleted 4 times in the space of this year alone. Isn't notable this year, Won't be notable next year ... Infact I can't see this bloke ever being notable. –Davey2010^Talk 00:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

::Have you come to the wrong discussion, User:Davey2010? AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

:::No ? ... But I'm gathering you're going to badger me about how I'm completely wrong ?... Yeah no disrespect but save it for someone who cares. –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

:::Well, not only do you write bullshit you are also arrogant and fail to understand the point of deletion discussions. Don't bother contributing if you won't rationally discuss. AusLondonder (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

::::I would say it's less bullshit and more the truth but we'll agree to disagree!, I'm honestly more than happy to discuss my reasons but you've badgered everyone on this AFD so far and so not matter what the fuck I'll say you'll disagree and say I'm utterly wrong so it's honestly pointless in debating it with you isn't it?, You think it should be kept and I think otherwise so lets just leave it at that & move on. –Davey2010^Talk 01:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Lack of demonstration that he is a significant person. Other than subscriber counts, his biggest verifiable claim in the article is that he ate a cactus. With this article under the microscope for two weeks, I don't see improvement that justifies keeping it. Obviously this can be revisited in the future if his future activities make him notable, but I don't see where he's crossed that threshold yet. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - As stated above, merely being listed or tangentially mentioned by some reliable sources isn't really enough to make one truly notable. It would be one thing if him eating a cactus was the subject of a specific Huffington Post article about him alone or him as well as just a few other people, details existing, and that was again cited by a follow-up article that found him noteworthy. That's just not the case. I think this article should be deleted. I also concur with C.Fred that this matter can be returned to if his future activities are of notice. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete for now - He is indeed a known youtuber with more than a million subscribers but like many youtubers he is not that exceptional. He needs to do something even more significant. There are hardly any article that acknowledge something he had done. Although he has been featured in some articles, those articles can't stand alone to support the creation of this page. I agree with C.Fred and CoffeeWithMarkets. If he should do something more worthy in the future only then shall we keep this page. Hamnus (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - because it's Oli White — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.92.184 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 October 2015‎ (UTC)

:*I've moved the above !vote from the talkpage to here. –Davey2010^Talk 19:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Searches do not turn up enough to show how they meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - The article's sources consist solely of webpages that detail page view stats, and trivial mentions. Page view statistics do not constitute notability and are utterly routine in nature (every YouTube account would have such databases), and the third-party sources are trivial mentions that do not warrant an article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.