386:. To show that these associations would give notability you'd have to show where Miller has received a lot of coverage about him being active with the various people. Also, a notable person making a comment about or even appearing on the channel doesn't mean that this makes the channel notable. Like the associations, this would have to be covered in independent and reliable sources. Unfortunately, the article was reliant on links to YT channels and other places that Knowledge would not consider to be a RS in this situation. I did find some coverage here and there, but it's not enough to establish notability and it seems that the most coverage centered on them breaking a world record in 2014, but unfortunately world records aren't considered to be a major accomplishment that would warrant a keep on that basis alone. They did appear in a documentary, but the documentary doesn't seem to have garnered enough coverage to where that'd be considered notability giving either. I have no problem with this being userfied and cultivated for the future, but right now it's just too soon.
382:. His article was repeatedly deleted up till March 2013, only months before he became the most subscribed person on YouTube, which gives you an idea of just how insanely hard it is to establish notability for social media personalities. Now Miller has received some mild coverage, but not really anything that's heavy enough to really be considered in-depth coverage. I tried finding coverage but there's just not much out there and I couldn't find anything to show that Miller was on the Advocates "40 under 40" list. Now the thing about him being associated with various acts and people is that being associated with someone isn't something that would automatically give notability on Knowledge, as notability is
373:. Miller and his boyfriend are popular on social media, but the problem here is that being popular isn't something that gives notability on that basis alone. It's actually incredibly common for multiple YT personalities to fail notability guidelines, as mainstream sources tend to rarely cover them. When they
377:
cover them, it tends to be of the "look at this video we found, isn't it funny/cute/terrible/etc" variety that isn't really considered to be in-depth coverage. My favorite example of how difficult it is to establish notability guidelines for YouTubers is
294:
for the criteria we are talking about here. Note that this is a discussion solely about the article as it stands at this moment, not the person, and this AfD is in no way a criticism of the article's subject: moreover, if suitable cites that meet the
163:
303:
reference comes closest, but since the article cited is not primarily about the subject, would just narrowly miss meeting the citation criteria for establishing notability. --
157:
249:
116:
359:
123:
353:. The lack of third-party sources is the real problem, and I haven't been able to find any substantial enough to change my opinion.
89:
84:
93:
17:
299:
criteria can be found, either now or in the future, the article can be either kept or recreated as appropriate. The (uncited)
269:
for poor references and the clumsy defense presented above, indicative that someone has a personal stake in it per WP:OAS.
178:
76:
145:
333:
354:
199:
442:
40:
418:
139:
383:
330:
256:
135:
438:
423:
397:
390:
364:
336:
312:
278:
259:
241:
203:
195:
58:
54:
36:
80:
185:
406:
308:
237:
171:
72:
64:
253:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
437:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
387:
274:
214:
Anyone with an objection to state the objection and why he/she thinks it doe not qualify.
151:
304:
233:
350:
346:
326:
322:
296:
291:
287:
229:
110:
270:
379:
210:
This
Article is Original and has sources sited. It qualifies to be in wiki.
217:
NOTE:- Note all articles being considered for deletion are deleted.
431:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
405:
as still not convincing of its own solidly notable article.
106:
102:
98:
170:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
445:). No further edits should be made to this page.
250:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
184:
8:
248:Note: This debate has been included in the
247:
232:, has no unaffiliated secondary sources.
7:
345:per, as mentioned above, failure of
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
290:. Original poster: please see
1:
462:
434:Please do not modify it.
59:21:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
424:05:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
398:04:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
365:21:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
337:19:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
313:19:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
279:18:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
260:16:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
242:17:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
204:15:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
194:Seems to fail WP:BIO.
355:Colonel Wilhelm Klink
331:ThePlatypusofDoom
262:
453:
436:
421:
416:
394:
196:GigglesnortHotel
189:
188:
174:
126:
114:
96:
57:
34:
461:
460:
456:
455:
454:
452:
451:
450:
449:
443:deletion review
432:
419:
407:
392:
384:WP:NOTINHERITED
362:
221:
131:
122:
87:
71:
68:
53:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
459:
457:
448:
447:
427:
426:
400:
358:
340:
339:
264:
263:
219:
208:
192:
191:
128:
67:
62:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
458:
446:
444:
440:
435:
429:
428:
425:
422:
417:
414:
410:
404:
401:
399:
396:
395:
389:
385:
381:
376:
372:
369:
368:
367:
366:
361:
356:
352:
348:
344:
338:
335:
332:
328:
324:
320:
317:
316:
315:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
276:
272:
268:
261:
258:
255:
251:
246:
245:
244:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
224:
218:
215:
212:
211:
206:
205:
201:
197:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
125:
121:
118:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
56:
55:North America
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
433:
430:
412:
408:
402:
391:
374:
370:
342:
341:
321:as he fails
318:
300:
283:
282:
266:
265:
254:Everymorning
225:
223:
222:
216:
213:
209:
207:
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
119:
73:MarkE Miller
65:MarkE Miller
49:
47:
31:
28:
388:Tokyogirl79
371:Weak delete
158:free images
439:talk page
380:PewDiePie
305:The Anome
286:-- fails
234:Dschslava
228:as fails
220:Editor:-
37:talk page
441:or in a
360:Mistakes
301:Advocate
117:View log
39:or in a
393:(｡◕‿◕｡)
164:WP refs
152:scholar
90:protect
85:history
415:wister
411:wister
403:Delete
351:WP:GNG
347:WP:BIO
343:Delete
334:(Talk)
327:WP:GNG
323:WP:BIO
319:Delete
297:WP:BIO
292:WP:BIO
288:WP:BIO
284:Delete
271:Dkendr
267:Delete
257:(talk)
230:WP:BIO
226:Delete
136:Google
94:delete
50:delete
179:JSTOR
140:books
124:Stats
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
420:talk
349:and
325:and
309:talk
275:talk
238:talk
200:talk
172:FENS
146:news
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
186:TWL
115:– (
52:.
375:do
363:)
357:(|
329:.
311:)
277:)
252:.
240:)
202:)
166:)
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
413:T
409:S
307:(
273:(
236:(
198:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
120:·
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.