Talk:List of YouTubers

ADD RAY WILLIAM JOHNSON!!!!

This page is a list of YouTube personalities, just because you seem to have a personal vendetta against the bloke does not mean that you can discard the second most subscribed youtuber in the world from the list. This is not a list of who you think is good or credible. It is a list of Youtube personalities. Based on his extreme popularity on YOUTUBE i would say he is far more of a famous youtube personality than most of the other people on the page. As for credibility and sources what more do you want than his huge popularity. You say that number of subscribers is not relevant, however wikipedia is a public site and the public have made him popular. so, stop being such a gradge holding idiot and and him to the list.

http://cnnconsumernews.com/2011/01/03/ray-william-johnson-tops-itunes-charts-cnn/ - ray on CNN, not in good light but RECOGNISED.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/youtubes-mostwatched-videos-of-the-week-bear-shot-out-of-tree-onto-trampoline-2010-music-mashup-2179547.html - ray featured and RECOGNISED as a personality in BRITISH tabloid. -shows international fame.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3721841/ - ray is even RECOGNISED on the internet movie database.

ONE MORE JUST BECAUSE:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6049898-ray-william-johnson-equals-3 -you will no doubt claim that these are not good sources, however two are internationally known news broadcasters, imdb shows him as featuring in more than just =3 and the other site is just because.

This list alone consists of far more 'sources' than most of the people on the list, not to mention all the other links people have sent you. Drop your personal vendetta against the guy, open your eyes and just ADD HIM TO THE LIST! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.29.119 (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are not going to be civil about this, then I suggest you move on and calm down. The fact IMDB has him on there is irrelevant as anyone can easily add and edit stuff on there. The All Voices and The Independent links don't show how HE is NOTABLE. Videos of the week articles are about the top videos on YouTube and doesn't show how Ray William Johnson is notable. The All Voices link talks about his show =3. The CNN articles talks about some items he put on iTunes. It doesn't show he is notable. It just talks about a controversy. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"The fact IMDB has him on there is irrelevant as anyone can easily add and edit stuff on there", Hmm sounds like Wikipedia to me, So then Wikipedia can NEVER be a reliable source EVER because it is the EXACT SAME THING! Give me an indepth article explaining the notability and reliability of WP or this website will be removed from the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underwoodl06 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What the Hell? The dude was on here a month or so ago. He's been mentioned in the f'n' NYT, for Christ's sake. He's #2 on YouTube, has had one of the fastest ascents in subscribers in YouTube history, and is poised to be the one to finally dethrone the unfunny NigaHiga. He's notable, no matter what you think of him. He was on here before. Stop removing him. PokeHomsar (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Bringing up how many subscribers he has on YouTube has been done before and mentioning over and over won't being him any closer to inclusion on this list. Find an actual good source stating why he is notable and he will be considered for inclusion. That's why people's requests usually end up dead because either don't bother finding sources when requesting, don't keep up with their request, try to go on views and subscribers alone, and or find bad sources. Freaking out like this PokeHomsar will not help your cause. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not against adding him if proper notability is established, but Fishhead2100 is completely right. These comments are not helping the case for his inclusion. Kyle1278 03:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100 Do you realise how you sound? Just read yourself and try to understand it, and I hope you get it. This would be like... lets say I'm talking to you in person, and I'm trying to convince you I'm alive, and not dead. And you say "no I don't care what you say, I don't believe you are alive, I need newspaper article to prove that you are not dead." And I say to you "but dude, I'm speaking to you! Look at me I'm waving my hands, talking to you, I am alive!!!" And you say "no no no, I need newspaper article, you are not alive". Trust me, it is THAT stupid. If you are not putting RWJ because of some wikipedia rule, then you should change or add new rule, and call it "Ray William Johnson rule". Because you are ruining wikipedia credibility with this stupid rules of yours.

Do you realize what Wikipedia would be like if there no rules? Do you really want Wikipedia to be an anarchist website that allows anything to happen? If that were the case then anybody would be able to post non-encyclopedic crap because they have no rules governing what can or cannot added to Wikipedia. That is the worst analogy EVER. Nice try though. Seriously stop instigating stuff and being uncivil because it is disruptive to the Wikipedia process. Plus, I'm not the only who said stuff about the rules. The fact you are still replying to this discussion means you haven't bothered to get the rules changed. You must not hate the rules that much if you haven't bothered to try and get them changed. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither of you addressed his inclusions in the NYTimes or his inclusion in CNN Consumer news. His notability has been established I just don't know why you guys are dragging your feet. 72.209.160.88 (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Those sources are possibly reliable. But charts are not coverage of the person (they are just statistics) and the iTunes article is mostly about what iTunes did, not what RWJ does. Regards SoWhy 16:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are only useful in a Ray William Johnson article. They don't show how he is notable otherwise. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The article clearly talks about the style of his music and its subsequent reupload to a non itunes(flycell) site. 72.209.160.88 (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about iTunes or another such site but YouTube. Regards SoWhy 08:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The relationship between his music and his Youtube account/career are very clear.(see doing your mom) Most if not all of his advertising is done through his Youtube account. 72.209.160.88 (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

sources

Ihave also noticed there are no sources for Joe Penna, A.K.A MYSTERYGUITARMAN SO WHY IS HE INCLUDED IN THE LIST AND YET RAY IS NOT. wikipedia is public site and editors bias is not a just reason to leave out a popular figure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.29.119 (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists!" is not a good argument, because we evaluate every subject individually. As for the example you cite, the sources exist in Joe Penna, the article about this subject. Please refrain from making personal attacks. We do not have a bias, we just have guidelines and Mr Johnson, despite his high number of viewers, fails them. Please read what constitutes a reliable source and how notability is defined on Wikipedia and then try again, preferably without writing all caps and insulting people. Regards SoWhy 22:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

SoWhy Then change your "guidelines", and make new ones. Or make some new rule and call it "Ray William Johnson" rule or something. Why all this rules and guidelines exist on wikipedia? So that article would be objective and had neutral point of view right? Well, this proves that you need a new rule, cuz this article is not objective and neutral. Anyone who reads this and is not familiar with YouTube would be very much miss guided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.168.27 (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are unsatisfied with our notability guidelines, you are of course free to initiate a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia operates on a principle of consensus and our current guidelines are a result of very long discussions that the community had over the last ten years, so it will be pretty hard to convince them that all previous guidelines were incorrect, especially if your only argument is "the current guidelines do not allow the result I want". Regards SoWhy 17:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wheezywaiter

I'd like to propose that Craig Benzine, a.k.a Wheezywaiter, be added to this list. I'm not to sure, however, whether these are sufficient sources: http://news.yahoo.com/s/mashable/20110120/tc_mashable/youtubers_get_another_conference_another_step_toward_the_mainstream http://www.avclub.com/chicago/articles/craig-benzine-of-wheezy-waiter,50318/

There aren't a lot of new articles about him, but he has risen into the Youtube spot light in the year just been, and will most certainly become even more prominent in the years to come.

And regarding RWJ, the page is called "Youtube personalities", which is certainly how most would describe RWJ. I think that he should be added to the list 125.239.242.13 (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The first link talks about Playlist Live which is a smaller version of Vid Con. The second link is good. I will add Craig Benzine. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

DO NOT add Ray William Johnson!!

I totally, 100% support not to add RWJ, and here's why.

This is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. Ray William Johnson is so big and famous on YouTube... he is Michael Jordan of YouTube, and this is so amazing, it's beyond any sane reason. Not to have him listed here, would be like Basketball Hall Of Fame not wanting Michael Jordan to be a part of it... cuz of some technical reasons or something. You SHOULDN'T putt him on the list, because it's so god damn hilarious, you would ruin it by putting him on the list.

But in all seriousness, moderators, do you realise you are damaging wikipedia credibility with this attitude of yours? What link, what news, what are you talking about? Man has 2 800 000 subscribers, END OF STORY! Are you kidding me? You need some link from some newspaper? People come on wikipedia to read articles from objective point of view, and this article is objective? RWJ is not YouTube celebrity? He is THE YouTube celebrity for crying out loud. You are just making yourself look ridiculous, and people will start to doubt in wikipidia in general, cuz if you are doing this kinds of stuff on this page, god knows what else are you doing and not allowing or forcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.168.27 (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead of complaining that Wikipedia does not allow your favorite artist to be included, you could try to find reliable sources that back up your claims. If you can find them, we will add him to the list. If you cannot, nothing will change. I can assure you though that constantly complaining here about this will not help your cause. Regards SoWhy 17:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You see, I don't believe that you just typed what you typed. I still believe no one responded to my post. I need link to reliable source that prooves you responded to my post. I mean that's what we're talking about. Why on EARTH do you need some news artical about RWJ? JUST GO ON YOUTUBE!!! THAT'S THE RELIABLE SOURCE! Youtube celebreties are people who are famous on YOUTUBE! I mean it's that simple, and you are embaresmenet for wikipedia, and ruining it for everybody. RWJ IS THE youtube celebrity. And I repeat, you shouldn't put him on the list, cuz this is way more entertaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.168.27 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it, YouTube is not reliable per Wikipedia:RS if you have a problem with the standards take it up on its discussion page. Like before you need to back up your claims. Not adding your favorite YouTube person dose not make Wikipedia or even this page less creditable, and don't complain about how other people have page you think are less notable than him other shit exists. Look for sources and post them insted of going off on rants becuase he is not on the list. Kyle1278 02:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

RWJ is not my "favorite youtube person". Its 2,8 million people favorite person apparently. We are talking about common sense. If someones video gets 5 million views EVERY TIME, and RWJ has 2 videos per week, that means millions of people are watching his videos. I mean, what's the definition of a celebrity? It's a person who is known by lots of people, right? And I'm sorry, but it's really dumb kind of when you say "look for sources". That would make sense if youtube didn't have statistics how many views some video has, or how many subscribers some youtube profile has. Since youtube does have those statistics, it's really kind of ridiculous to say "you need reliable source". It would be like saying "I don't believe American Idol is the most popular tv show in US. I don't care what Nielsen ratings says. I need reliable news article who reports about it, and then I believe it". It is just BEYOND REDICILOUS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.168.27 (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

O yeah, I almost forgot. You posted a link to Wikipedia:RS . I don't believe in this rules. I need a reliable source to a news artical who reports about it, and then I believe these are the rules of wikipedia. Thank you very much.

You misunderstand. We do believe that these numbers. It's just that a lot of viewers itself does not mean someone is notable per se and our guidelines and policies require that notability is verifiable with a reliable source. Those are the rules here, you can either respect them and try to work within them to achieve change or you can rant about it and fail to achieve what you want. The choice is, of course, yours. Regards SoWhy 13:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't think a lot of views means someone is notable? I wonder what you'll say next. "Just because Avatar made 2,8 billion dollars, does not make it a popular movie. We need reliable source that proves it's a popular movie". I mean Jesus Christ OF COURSE it means. And I get "those are the rules", I'm just saying it's a dumb rule, and it's ridiculous no one is saying "Man RWJ has 2,8 million subscribers, every videos of his is getting 5 million views, and he is not on the list because of these "rules". I guess we need to change them immediately!" 94.189.168.27 (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep running your mouth ranting and not being civil and you will eventually be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Like it's been stated, that if you don't like the rules of Wikipedia, then change them instead of complaining about them. You don' want to look for a reliable source because you can't find one. Until one is found, then he will not be added. I don't know how much clearer we can make this. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to quote the fifth pillar of wikipedias policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I believe that fits this topic absolutely perfectly. You and a few 'admins' who seems to have a fear of deviating from this completely subjective and biased 'notability' policy are doing everything you can to keep anyone who doesn't have a mention in a popular news paper out of it. The article is called 'Youtube personalities'. I'm reasonably sure that by nature of the article it circumvents the traditional notability guidelines. Other than your weak position that Ray William Johnson has simply not had an article written about him is grounds to keep him out of a list is just despicable. This is a community site. "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." You few admins who are blocking what the people want are simply following an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy, without considering the numerous reasons to include basically the most popular man on youtube in *a list about youtube personalities*. The community says they want him included in the list; and we're trying to, as told by the 5th pillar, to ignore the bureaucratic rules you're imposing on us, but you're making it quite difficult.

Hey, while you're at it letting us include Ray William Johnson, you should probably go delete the entry for Kip Kay, as the reference provided leads to a dead page with nothing of value on it. Keep up the consistency, and definitely keep enforcing your overly strict interpretation of the rules! It's definitely making people happy and leading to a better encyclopedia experience for all! Rjc34 (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagreeing with a rule is fine. Saying it's biased just because it does not support your argument is not. If you quote the five pillars, please remember that "Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree" is also one of those pillars. As you cite community consensus, you will want to note that one of the concerns of keeping this very article at the last AFD discussion was the lack of notability standards and a number of people explicitly expressed that entries on the list should meet our notability criteria. While the discussion was not explicitly about Mr. Johnson, this consensus still affects his (non)inclusion on the list. Since you were citing WP:IAR, you might also want to read WP:IAR?. Ignoring the rules requires you to explain why the rules do not apply to this case, although they were created with this case in mind. Again, we do not doubt, that Mr. Johnson has a lot of viewers. We just need reliable sources to verify it. As Wikipedia:Verifiability says: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Personally, I'd be happy if some sources could be found to end this recurring discussion once and for all, so you are more than welcome to provide them. Regards SoWhy 08:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite response. Sorry if I muddled the rules a bit in my argument, but I think a lot of people feel that your guys are going a bit to far on this issue. The issue I have with your criteria of a news article or something is this: Mr. Johnson makes videos that cover various trending videos that are discovered through viewer submissions etc. By definition of what he does no news company will ever cover him. By almost everyones standards every one of his uploads 'goes viral' reaching the #1 most viewed for the day uploaded and usually a day or two after. But, his videos are a series, a very popular one, not something breakthrough and new, which is why no news companies would have a reason to report him. I'm curious why for one we can't use YouTube's own numbers to verify claims, and for two how people who become 'youtube famous' from a single popular video could be considered 'youtube personalities'. Rjc34 (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Because YouTube's numbers would be a primary source and we need secondary sources that are independent of the subject they cover. YouTube is not Mr. Johnson but if we write about something related to YouTube, YouTube itself cannot be a source. That would be circular reasoning. I think if he really had this impact, there should be significant coverage about him as well, no matter what he does. Some newspapers cover anything that is of potential interest to their readers so I'm quite sure that coverage must exist somewhere. Unfortunately, no one has been able to find any yet, so that's why we have not included him yet. If you have access to newspaper archives or similar that are pay-per-view, you might want to try and find some. Regards SoWhy 13:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Popularity doesn't equate notability. It's like being popular in high school. Just because you were popular in high school doesn't mean you will be notable. Notability and popularity are two different things. Ted Williams ended on a lot of different shows after one video while some people talk years of hard work doing what they do to get on shows. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 13:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What? What kind of a comparison is that? "Just because you were popular in high school doesn't mean you will be notable" WHAT? If you are popular in high school, YOU ARE NOTABLE IN HIGH SCHOOL! That's the comparison! This is not artical "youtubers who will be notable in 20 years" We are talking about present time! If someone is popular on youtube, then he is notable youtube personality! End of story! 94.189.168.27 (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Popularity doesn't equate notability. If being popular was all it took to notable, then every popular person in high school would be notable and notable for what? That's like Paris Hilton being famous for doing nothing. Just popularity on its own is not a good enough reason to include someone on the list. There are tons of popular YouTubers, but they are not on this list because sources for them are hard to find. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Popular people in high school are notable at their high school. Popular people on YouTube are notable on YouTube. That's the point. PokeHomsar (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Michelle Phan

Michelle Phan now has a stylist, Chriselle in her channel, meaning her channel also does fashion videos, and also a hair guru, Krista. So now the channel has more than one person in it and not only does make up but also hair and clothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.58.110.247 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We need sources so this addition can happen. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Did You read all the topics?RWJ

If you look at the list there is alot of people on the list that the average youtuber could not name but the one who is 2 most subscribed cannot even get on the list Here is a list of his youtube awards #2 - Most Subscribed (All Time) http://www.youtube.com/channels?p=1&s=ms&gl=&t=a&g=0 http://www.youtube.com/channels?p=1&s=ms&gl=&t=a&g=5 http://www.youtube.com/channels?p=1&s=mv&gl=&t=t&g=0 http://www.youtube.com/channels?p=1&s=mv&gl=&t=t&g=2 http://www.youtube.com/channels?p=1&s=mv&gl=&t=t&g=5 (more) (less) as of 2/13/11 8:05 Moutain time Number 2 Subscribed of all time http://www.youtube.com/channels?s=ms&t=a&g=0 San Francisco chronical http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/02/05/businessinsider-top-viral-videos-of-the-week-5-2011-2.DTL — Preceding unsigned comment added by XIkennethIx (talk • contribs) 03:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The same typical "video of the week" article means nothing. It doesn't prove notability. Find an article in from a reliable source proving his notability then he will be added. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sir, what did you say? If someone gets 5 million views for every posted video, that does not mean he is notable? FIVE MILLION VIEWS FOR EVERY VIDEO. I mean Jesus Christ... why don't you also say "Just because Toy Story 3 made a billion dollars, doesn't make it a popular movie. I need an article to prove it!" OMG! You are absolutely ruining wikipedia for everybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.168.27 (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So upholding Wikipedia rules is ruining Wikipedia? These rules have been set over a lot of discussions over the past ten years. If you don't agree with the rules, then start a discussion to get them changed. That's the worst analogy EVER for not getting your way ever! Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fifth pillar of wikipedias policy says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". It's pretty obvious to everyone that RWJ should be on this list, and I can bet if you people put him on the list, NO ONE will ever try to dispute that decision. You won't have anyone on discussion page saying "Man RWJ really shound't be on this list, he is nobody!". You are just following an overly strict interpretation of some rule. If everybody would be that strict in real world, 80% of people would be in jail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.168.27 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Adherence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_sense#Use_common_sense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR Now would be the time for consensus, yes? That is the recommendation under adherence for finding the expected exceptions for the rules. 72.209.160.88 (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah forgot reasoning, his viewer base is both large and sustained, while his influence on the Internet outside of Youtube is limited it has been shown to exist.(this page provides an ample amount of examples) In addition there has been a continued effort to add him to this list it has remained because it is obvious ray william johnson belongs in this list. He has fame and this is a result of his youtube career, he has notability if abet mostly limited to the youtube community itself. 72.209.160.88 (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

People like Lucas Cruikshank, Ryan Higa, Chris Crocker, and others have transcended outside of YouTube and the Internet. Lucas Cruikshank has made guest appearances as himself, Fred, or in other roles in "Hannah Montana," "iCarly," a movies based on Fred, etc.. Ryan Higa has put out a movie which got limited theater released entitled "Ryan and Sean's Not So Excellent Adventure." Chris Crocker's "Leave Britney Alone" video was featured in a movie. That's why we need a suitable reference for him. It's not just the Internet outside of YouTube that he needs to notable. Some notable YouTubers transcend the Internet. It's just that they use YouTube as a way to make money. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Then because of what you have just stated I propose the title of this article be changed to: "List of Selected YouTube Personalities who have Transcended YouTube". Seems to fit your extremely narrow views of what should belong on the article better. Rjc34 (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't "List of Selected YouTube Personalities by Opinionated Wikipedia Editors" better suit the title? I can support that with a multitude of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underwoodl06 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

RayWilliamJohnson is a partner and his viewer base means he likely makes more than most users off of youtube. So that logic doesn't really work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.160.88 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are showing your uncivialized nature to conduct Wikipedia in a proper way. You seem to be jaded because Ray William Johnson is not on the list and your whole life depends on the list. There are a lot of people who upload videos on Wikipedia and or are YouTube partners but are not on this list. Jory Caron, Jon Paula, and Riley McIllwain of ideoProductions, Mike Mozart of Jeppers Media who posts videos of fail toys and candy, Fluffee of Fluffee Talks, and many others are not on the list. Instead of complaining, find an article with what I've stated should be in it then I'll add it in. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 13:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe I have been uncivil, could you please point out the behavior you have taken offense at so that I might correct myself in the future? I have found articles which prove his notability you just twist your definitions to argue against them, my points about the 5th rule still hasn't been addressed.72.209.160.88 (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Who says I was referring to you being uncivil? You sign your comments. The other IP address is the one that has been uncivil. Half the articles say that he is a YouTuber and posts a video of his. The other half of the articles say how many views he gets, how many subscribers, and about his show =3. There needs to be more then just the same thing over and over again in an article. Until that happens, Ray William Johnson will not be added to the list. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Dave Days

Dave Days has over 1 000 000 subscribers, has been featured in news articles alongside miley cyrus and is going on a nationwide tour with 3 other youtube personalities (Destorm, Mysteryguitarman, Ricky Ficarelli).

{{edit semi-protected}} |- | Dave Days | davedays | Singer, songwriter and vlogger. Rose to popularity for his playlist "Adventures to Miley Cyrus' Heart" which ended with a video featuring Miley Cyrus. He is taking part in the 2011 Digitour. | |-

Also, Phil Davison's entry should be moved down for the list to be alphabetical by first name.

Beng341 (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Insufficient reasons for change provided. Please remember that a high number of views and/or subscribers is not a valid reason for inclusion on this list. Atmoz (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Disputed

Based on my edits made on 16:06, January 28, 2011 I think it is reasonable enough to include Ray William Johnson. I cited four articles, all coming from credible establishments:

From the first article I cited from the Washington Post, when referring to "kings at the top - young, male, sophomoric" on the previous page:

"There is Ray William Johnson, who makes sense of it all by reviewing YouTube's best."

From the second article (from CTV):

"There's a subculture of web users who speak reverentially about the work of RayWilliamJohnson"

From the third article (from Germany's Süddeutsche Zeitung, when talking about how to be successful on YouTube:

"Oder Ray William Johnson, ein Student aus New York, der für seine fast 1,7 Millionen Abonnenten zwei Mal pro Woche gefilmte Missgeschicke zeigt und launig kommentiert: Am Ende jeder Folge lädt er die Nutzer ein, ihm in einem Video eine Frage zu stellen, irgend eine.", which translated via Google Translate into "Or Ray William Johnson, a student from New York, for its nearly 1.7 million subscribers twice a week shows filmed mishaps and humorous comments"

From the fourth article (from Norway's NRK):

"YouTube-kjendis Ray William Johnson fleiper om den kvinnelige NRK-reporteren som ble angrepet bakfra av et reinsdyr." and "YouTubes største humorkanal = 3 (Equals Three) og programleder Ray Williams Johnsen har angrepet på en NRK Sámi Radio-reporter som toppsak.", which translate via Google Translate into "YouTube celebrity Ray William Johnson joking about the female Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation reporter who was attacked from behind by a reindeer." and "YouTube's biggest comedy channel = 3 (Equal Three) and presenter Ray Williams has attacked Johnson on NRK Sámi Radio reporter who toppsak."

With the given references, I believe the article is not factually accurate as it stands, and therefore I dispute RWJ's absence from the article. If you disagree with my dispute template I've added to the article, please discuss this with me here before removing it. Thanks for the time Chiefmartinez (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What's to dispute? It's not like you posted cited any references that show his notability. The first reference is about Lucas Cruikshank who created "Fred." Not exactly Ray William Johnson now is it? The second reference is not about Johnson, but about Canadian YouTubers. Sure they may mention him, but overall the article doesn't show his notability. The third reference talks about how many subscribers he has. Views are not enough to establish notability. The fourth and final reference is not much of an article. It just says that Johnson made an episode of =3 which showcased a reporter getting attacked by a reindeer and proceeded to make jokes about it. How does that show his notability? It doesn't. So in effect, you picked poor references. Find references that show his NOTABILITY and he will be added. So comeback with a request when you have that. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to accept #3 as a reliable source about his notability since it also talks about the way his show works (I read the original article in German). I also found this source that talks about him almost exclusively but I'm not sure whether the source fits WP:RS. Regards SoWhy 08:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So if this is accepted by you, why isn't he on the list? You yourself have read and accepted it as a reliable source. That means he has the right to be added to the list. What is the hold up? It is accepted and reliable just as you said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underwoodl06 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The third one just talks about views. Remember we don't go on views alone. You of all people should know that, SoWhy. That source you provided talks about his show =3 and sounds more like an column or editorial than an article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. But the source does also mention how at least parts of his show works. Regards SoWhy 15:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So if the 4th Reference isn't good enough for reference since they mentioned his video, then why should Amanda Baggs be notable since her video was only mentioned once on CNN? There is no notability for being mentioned once. Or how about Ted Williams since he obviously does NOT have a Youtube subcription at all and he has one notable video? There is no notability for his video being mentioned. So how does your 'argument' make sense? It is more or less a petty excuse to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underwoodl06 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I found a good article to add Ted Williams. Now if you bothered to look at the article that is referenced, then you would see they talk about them how they are notable. Don't get mad because you are not getting your way. Just find a suitable reference that talks about him and how he is notable. I get that there will be some mentions of his show. But talking just about his show is not suitable as it doesn't talk about how he is notable. All I want is a reference that conforms to the standards set in place. Once that happens, then we can put this to rest once and for all. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Toby Turner

I definitely think that he should be present on this list. He has almost 750 thousand subscribers, and is the 39th most subscribed Youtuber. He has many well known videos, including several of his literal trailers. Also, he has donme several none internet things as a result of his Youtube popularity. A quick Google search gets several articles about him: 1, 2, and there are others out there. And for this reason, I think that he should be added to this list. Discdeath (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the number of subscribers are not enough to equate notability. Secondly, the references are not goood enough. The first one isn't really much of an article. It doesn't talk about him in depth. It just talks about the style of his videos. The second reference points to a bunch of articles that have been posted. Find some other more suitable references and we will look them over. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Tobuscus is actually becoming one of the most well-known YouTube identities. I'm actually shocked he doesn't have his own Wikipedia article. He's coming up on passing Danebo in subscribers, and he has a rumored relationship with iJustine. I guess connections don't get people onto Wikipedia, though. But considering Toby's constantly growing popularity and instant hits on his videos and such, he deserves to at least be put on this list, if not have an article written about him. He's that damn good. --Arkatox (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone should add him then. Personally, I think the dude's hilarious. He's been taken under the wing of Philip DeFranco, AKA sxephil. PokeHomsar (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal feelings need to be left out. Wikipedia doesn't write based on what your personal feelings about a person are. Personally I like YouTubers Jory Caron, Riley McIllwain, and Jon Paula. But they won't be added to this list because suitable sources can't be found for them. Again, speak from an NPOV because want to keep Wikipedia as neutral as possible. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I kind of suck at finding links to anything, I can tell you that he has been involved in several things which may indicate notability. He was a contestant in that "Just Dance Off" thing a while ago. He took a part in something to do with the Sony Internet T.V., Ubisoft paid a lot of attention to one of his literal Trailers of their games, and lots of other things. As I said, I'm bad at finding links, but I can provide links to some of his videos which show him in these events (although I doubt that they count). Sony T.V., Just Dance 2 thing. Discdeath (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that he went to E3 2010! :D --Arkatox (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just found out that he's going again this year to E3, but this time it's on behalf of Ubisoft. Also, he does quite a few conferences and things. But still, I cannot find the suitable links. Discdeath (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and he might interview some game developers too. Here's the link to the vlog video. --Arkatox (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be hard to find sources on him. When one is found, then by all means bring it to our attention and it will be looked at. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not totally sure if this would count. But it's him on "Youtube Spotlight", which I think would mark him as somewhat notable, but I'm not totally sure. Discdeath (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, his latest video has been posted in a bunch of places. IGN, Kotaku, and CBS, to name but a few. Discdeath (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's all fine and well, but we need some reliable sources like a news article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again, another not completely sound source. Here is Toby's page on Wikitubia (the YouTube wiki). I'll say though, before I first edited it a few months ago, it was complete crap, and now every couple weeks or something some noob will edit it to add some information (but do it badly), and make the page look less professional (in other words, I need to constantly edit that page, pretty much). That wiki is just full of people who don't know how to write correctly. Oh well, now I'm rambling. I do that a lot. --Arkatox (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No Wiki type links. Those can be edited by anybody. We want a news article from a reliable secondary source. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I may finally be onto something here. Here he is mentioned on guardian.co.uk, hopefully this might count. But I'll leave that up to you to decide. Discdeath (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep up the search. That article gives him a one sentence mention. We need an article dedicated to him and not an article highlights best of the Internet during the week. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As I think should be more than obvious by now, I'm not totally sure what type of stuff would count. So I'll just put some stuff out there, in the hopes that some is of the suitable category 1, 2, 3. Discdeath (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I might be able to shed some light on your confusion, Discdeath. I worked on getting a band on Wikipedia a couple of years back. And while they had quite a growing following and found more than a little popularity on YouTube, it wasn't until it could be shown from independent sources (non-blogger reviews, major media outlets) that this band was considered an icon and even an archetypal example of their genre that Wikipedia admin consensus moved toward allowing the page to stand. In other words, just being popular on YouTube isn't enough; he needs to be notable (i.e. noticed) by outside sources as being significant, not just by his fan base. That's the difference between popularity and notability. Popularity is everyone in high school liking the star quarterback. Notability is local and regional media and league scouts looking into that high school and taking an interest in him as well. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I realize this, the point is that he does get attention outside of Youtube, he gets called in to give talks at various conferences, companies use him to help advertise products, he gets hired to promote things, he's had a part in a film which had a favourable reception at sundance. The problem is that there just don't seem to be many articles explicitly about him.

And so Tobuscus has surpassed Daneboe, and is coming up close (within 20,000 subscribers) to SHAYTARDS. Both of them are on the list. I guess I'll just keep up the article search. I wonder if Toby knows about the great battle to get him onto Wikipedia. Lol. --Arkatox (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ted Williams but not RWJ?

Really? We can't add Ray William Johnson, one of the most famous celebrties on YouTube and has jumped to the top in one of the fastest times than any other YouTube personality but we will add Ted Williams? A man that isn't even subcribedto YouTube and only became famous do to his voice? How is that even fair? YouTube personality shouldn't be because you are notable in one video. RWJ has numerous videos and he has comedic talent as well as sings and co-stars in other celebrities videos do to his popularity that has quickly brought him up to #2 Most Subscribed, almost in 1st behind Nigahiga. There are othr numerous people on the list that are only notable for One.. count it, One video that people laughed at for a week and forgot, Like Chris Crocker with his hissy fit about Britney Spears or Stevie Ryan who has nothing to note about him. HDCYT for one video, Amanda Baggs who is on the list for being shown on CNN, Boh3m3 who is notable only for being 'known as Boh3m3', Not to mention the many people that just cover songs by other artists. It is pitiful to be notable for these kinds of things but we won't allow Ray to be on the list because he actually has talent and fame! We didn't negate Fred for being annoying and copying a character of Makemebad35 who released his character overa year before Fred and just because he has problems, he is notable for being annoying.

RWJ has all the qualifications to be on the list if some of these people do. Stop putting your personal frets into this and put him on the list. He is #2, that is notable enough! and when he is#1, that will be MOST Notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underwoodl06 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you are upset that Ted Williams got notable with one video then Ray William Johnson did with all of his videos. You do realize that this list is about people who have become notable because of YouTube? Thus it makes them a YouTube personality. Plus WP:OTHERCRAP is not a good argument and is a waste of time people's time. What personal frets are you refering too? The personal frets I see is the person complaining about him not being on the list. If you think following Wikipedia rules are personal frets, then all the people who follow them have personal frets... Seriously, stop complaining and find a suitable reference because you could be using your time and energy to that instead of complaining. I'm not the one that wants him on the list. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's some:

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=144994

http://arbiteronline.com/2011/02/07/popshots-equals-three-goes-viral/

Now, add him already. PokeHomsar (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a no go on these sources. The first one is about how YouTubers get views and make money through the YouTube partnership program. It's not soley about Ray Willaim Johnson. The second link was already brought up and it's written like a column or editorial. That style of writing is not NPOV. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Another thing, people like Lucas Cruikshank, Ryan Higa, Chris Crocker, and others have transcended outside of YouTube and the Internet. Lucas Cruikshank has made guest appearances as himself, Fred, or in other roles in "Hannah Montana," "iCarly," a movies based on Fred, etc.. Ryan Higa has put out a movie which got limited theater released entitled "Ryan and Sean's Not So Excellent Adventure." Chris Crocker's "Leave Britney Alone" video was featured in a movie. That's why we need a suitable reference for him. It's not just the Internet outside of YouTube that he needs to notable. Some notable YouTubers transcend the Internet. It's just that they use YouTube as a way to make money. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are other sources which I am most undoubtedly sure you will turn down because they "don't fit the standards set up by WP".

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/raywilliamjohnson http://music.blogdig.net/archives/articles/January2011/27/Your_Favorite_Martian___My_Balls.html http://raywilliamjohnson.org/2010/12/ray-williams-johnson-wiki/ http://dailyblowhole.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/youtube-spotlight-ray-william-johnson/ http://hey-bradshaw.blogspot.com/2010/11/when-will-ray-william-johnson-pass.html http://www.mahalo.com/raywilliamjohnson/ http://youtube.wikia.com/wiki/RayWilliamJohnson http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2010/10/02/ray-william-johnson-owns-todd-bentley/ http://rhettandlink.com/blog/ray-william-johnson-roasts-rhett-link/ http://g a r e n a.viviti.com/entries/general/u-be-trippin-by-ray-william-johnson http://www.zimbio.com/Youtubers/articles/8UTtSwSu8UI/How+Ray+William+Johnson+Become+Popular+Youtube http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6049898-ray-william-johnson-equals-3 http://www.arlingtoncardinal.com/2010/11/14/funny-file-do-iguanas-pass-gas-can-a-mouse-be-racist-thing-you-dont-learn-on-national-geographic/#more-32329 http://mattsmarket.com/?p=303 http://iheartapple.org/2009/09/apple-store-love-song/

That should be enough. And there are plenty of articles showing RWJ's notariety on the internet. So just add him already.

For someone of his has a lot of subscribers (as you often like to point out), he should be able to transcend the Internet. Any blog or Wiki links are not going to be used because they are not the best types of sites for sources. I don't think you saw this on the first link, "This entry has been rejected due to incompleteness or lack of notability." Plus that link sounds more like profile, then an actual article. The second link is about a new channel he has created. The sixth link also is a profile rather then an article. The tenth link is a blog. The All Voices link is not that good. It's a poorly written piece with the same stuff majority of the links say. Why would I use that one and not one of the others? Doesn't make much sense. The Arlington Cardinal article is not that good either. It just has a few lines and a posted video. What are we supposed to reference with that? The Matt's Mark link is a blog and even if it wasn't, we couldn't use it because it's about a song he sang. Can't really use that. So automatically, the Matt's Market link cancels out the iHeartApple.com link.

What I want is an in depth article about him. Some elements can include his background and how he got into making videos, how he has transcended YouTube and the Internet as a whole, how his success on YouTube has led to other possible opportunities outside of the Internet, etc.. I don't want an article telling use that he is a YouTuber. Telling us that is redundant as we know he is a YouTuber or people wouldn't try so hard to get him on this list. We don't need stats like how many subscribers he has on YouTube, how many views he has, how many fans on Facebook, how many followers on Twitter, etc.. Stats don't always equate notability. Now if you can find a good article which has some of the stuff I've mentioned, then he will be added. Until such time, the links will continually be rejected. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!}

So other people can be put on the list for their 'notable' covers of a song but actually mentioning hit songs and bands that RWJ has been a part of isn't notable at all? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And your mentioning of Wiki sites not being sufficient enough doesn't do justice for this Wiki site at all. The 2nd link is about a band he is in which he has a channel for and oviously the band is note worthy to have one of their songs mentioned, that is notable. So really what are you going on? He can sing and has great talent to the point they have reviews of hit songs and the band, not to mention songs on iTunes, but it isn't as notable as some other person who covers a song and gets a review, Yeah, that is notable. These are good sources but i sounds like you are picky to pick one that satifies your needs. It is either not reliable, too short, not detailed enough. I guarentee that I can find articles on the list that match or have much less the subject matter and detail as some of these articles I and so many others have provided. I think he is notable for being in two bands that have hit songs that others have reviewed and talked about, not to mention their band's websites. But to you the band's official website wouldn't be a reliable source.. Excuses excuses..

You are still complaining rather then looking for what would be suitable. You don't seem to understand that we need reliable secondary sources. Not a band's website, YouTube, Myspace, Facebook, etc.. Sure we can use those for something, but not as a main source. iTunes is irrelevant as this article is based on YouTube. For someone who thinks every source is good, you try to make a cop out and try to bring irrelevant stuff into it. Why do I need to keep repeating the same thing over and over? It's getting redundant. Knowing you, you will try to pass off some poorly written article, blog, Wiki type article as a good. I've looked for a good in depth article on him and nothing is found. That leads me to see that he isn't notable enough to get a proper in depth article written on him. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I believe Ray William Johnson should be added to the list as he's considered notable enough. And if this might help, I found this article from a notable source if this helps his inclusion to the list: [1] --Victory93 (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That link is a blog. Even if it wasn't, we can't use as it's not based soley on Ray William Johnson plus the blurb about him is too small. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, So let's see the excuses you come up with for these,

• http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-youtube-channels.php

This site lists the top ten YouTube channels and gives an short explanation of each channel and how the videos are set up. This accurately describes RWJ's video channel and his involvement in the videos.

• http://dailyblowhole.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/youtube-spotlight-ray-william-johnson/

This article is all about RWJ and his channels, his contributions and his fast growing popularity on YouTube. It includes plenty of information about his video making and his other channels. But I bet it isn't done by a 'reliable source' in your words.

• http://exploredia.com/ray-william-johnson-first-video/#more-1288

This website has biographical information and contains his quick rise to #2 as well as mentioning his other YouTube Channels. This article has just as much information as the short blurb on Shane Dawson so obviously it can't be too short if that is the excuse.

• http://www.articlerich.com/Article/Ray-William-Johnson-bio/1090386

This article includes a lot of biographical information and things he is notable for such as his memes and popular catchphrases. It describes his channels, videos and involvement in his bands as well as future involvement with Adult Swim for cartoons and his talks with HBO. But I bet this isn't reliable to you either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underwoodl06 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We are requiring a NEWS article not a blog or a Wikipediaesque site. Anybody can have a mention on blog or Wikipediaesque site. I don't get why you can't comprehend that a news article is what is wanted and not just some site with poorly written content. If you write a blog, then would know that most blogs are not NPOV. A lot of people write based on what they want and their view. What I'm asking you is not blogs or Wikipeidaesque site. Provide a good news source is all that is asked. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? I just gave you a Long list of completely legitimate articles that closely resemble and some that match other articles used as references in the list! The short blurb about shane dawson is exactly like the one from the first link. The TopTenz reference is perfectly legitimate because it is not a blog or wikipediaesque site. You are being extremely one sided and difficult. You just have personal opinions on the guy about not being added. You will never be satisfied when it comes to this guy being added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.79.123.134 (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, Mr. C. C., you have a bias against RWJ. If I comb through the other people's links on this page, there are articles of the exact type you reject. Almost none of them have newspaper articles. Most of them are blogs. You are looking for reasons to reject RWJ's inclusion. PokeHomsar (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, in just the first 11 links, I found three that are in no way legitimate under your guidelines:

http://new.uk.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chartwatch/14832/week-ending-december-11th-2010/ -- Reject for not being completely about the subject. http://www.j-14.com/2010/07/exclusive-qa-with-alexis-jordan.html -- Reject for being a no name blog. http://www.pluginmusic.com/news/archive.php?id=2563 -- Reject for being a no name blog.

Shall I go on? PokeHomsar (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/n/2493/ -- No name blog. http://laist.com/2009/05/17/bo_burnham_youtube_phenom_turned_co.php -- No name blog. http://www.dailyfill.com/Will-Youtube-Star-Christina-Grimmie-Follow-In-Justin-Biebers-Footsteps-71943/ -- No name blog. http://www.redorbit.com/news/entertainment/1306174/winners_announced_for_second_annual_youtube_video_awards/index.html -- No name blog. http://www.dieselpunks.org/forum/topics/interview-doctor-steel -- Never heard of this. http://www.villanovan.com/overnight-celebrity-1.1270111 -- A college newspaper, really? http://www.youtube.com/jackvalefilms#p/u/13/jcMnNmk_dnE -- A link to his YouTube page. http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/06/11/interview-jack-conte-internet-musician/ -- How is this a legitimate link? http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/03/ff_youtube_5secrets/ -- Not completely about subject. http://www.youtube.com/browse?s=mp&t=a&c=0&l=&b=0&cr=US&locale=en_US&persist_locale=1 -- How is this most viewed chart legitimate? http://media.www.digmagonline.com/media/storage/paper1159/news/2011/02/01/Features/A.Comedians.Youtube.Success-3972281.shtml -- Is this legitimate? http://crushable.com/entertainment/watch-out-justin-bieber-kina-grannis-proves-girls-can-find-success-through-youtube-too/ -- Not legitimate. http://www.killerstartups.com/review/kipkay-com-kipkay-gadget-videos -- Link doesn't work. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=2C189BC49E25D16A -- Link to a damn YouTube playlist. http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/11/kutiman-killed-the-video-star/ -- A notable blog but still a blog. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P6UU6m3cqk -- A damn YouTube video. http://artists.letssingit.com/lisa-lavie-24d4r/biography -- A website with damn "download this ringtone" disruption ads. http://puregrainaudio.com/news/mychildren-mybride-release-video-for-on-wings-of-integrity-featuring-mitchell-davis -- Not notable.

PokeHomsar (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0018CABC6 -- Link to his damn DVD on Amazon. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2517 -- A link announcing the sale of his DVD. http://www.zdnet.com/videos/tech-news/sarah-meyers-tv-where-the-world-is-headed/172372 -- A video on a no name website. http://host304.hostmonster.com/suspended.page/disabled.cgi/ipoind.com -- Link doesn't even work. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091204/0029527202.shtml -- No name blog.

And I've gone through it all. If all these links are legitimate, at least one of the links for RWJ is. PokeHomsar (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

http://fort-greene.thelocal.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/rapping-for-sauce-and-maybe-more/?scp=2&sq=DeStorm%2520Power&st=cse -- While this is done in collaboration with the NYT, this article was still written by a college student, making it illegitimate. Because if a college newspaper is legitimate, I will write something about RWJ for my college newspaper to get him added. PokeHomsar (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead of using WP:OTHERCRAP, find links better links and change them. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Go back and re-read what I said about that link to a college newspaper. You will see that I never said anything about it being illegitimate. It was the style of writing that cancelled out the Arbiter Online link. A column or editorial are POV style articles which means they are not neutral or NPOV. Nice try in twisting what I said into something I didn't. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pointing to things deemed acceptable. What's deemed acceptable for this article is the same stuff you've denied. PokeHomsar (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that YouTube isn't a good source. We need reliable secondary sources. So a playlist means nothing. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

PokeHomsar, You can try all you want but we know this guy makes it his personal vendetta to keep RWJ from being put on the list. We could have an article from the NYTimes or a video from any News Network but he will make the dumbest excuse to deny the authenticity/reliability or anything else like he has numerous times with all of the great sources we have supplied. And as you can see, most of them match or outdo what has been accepted for the list. You have proven that most of the links that were accepted are blogs or unreliable columns and articles written by others to include the most random 'personalities' on the internet. You have even proven that some of the sources don't work. And the only thing he tells you is to find new links to keep those people on. They won't be deleted like he did to RWJ who for quite some time was on the list, but once this guy put his ass in the ring, he will make sure that one of the most popular and most like celebrities on the internet never makes it to the list. He is being personal about this whole list. User SoWhy has even said that one of the articles submitted above was a good source but this guy just uses the same damn excuse. We have proven with many articles he belongs on this list but I guess a guy who lives on WP and tries to dictate what goes and what doesn't is going to win because of his personal opinions. We have plenty of sources and SoWhy has agreed, but Mr. C.C is and always will be a sore and stubborn user here.

Keep up the Great work though. I have exhausted all of energy trying to fight this guy because he is too petty to give up on his personal goal to exclude one of the greatest YouTubers in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underwoodl06 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You keep making the same excuse for not finding a NEWS article. "These links are good enough." That doesn't fly. I've searched for actual NEWS articles and haven't found one that is suitable. You would know that if you looked for an actual NEWS article. You want to complain about the reference next to the Pomplamoose entry because it's more then the same old stuff on them like: "They are YouTubers, singer-songwriters, and musicians who make music using the videosong genre of video while selling MP3s to afford to live comfortably..." This article on Pomplamoose here is what a good article should be. Sure it talks about YouTube and the videosong genre they've perfected. But it goes into so much more. Now how came an article like this can't be found on Ray William Johnson? I'm not saying it has to be of that length, but it should be more then five lines or three sentences. This is not a forum to state that you think he is one of the greatest YouTubers in history. Wikipeida doesn't care you feel that way as Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral or NPOV. Wikipedia is not edited based on how you feel. If it was, then people would ignore truth and put their feelings in articles. Oh and by the way, I've only participated in one deletion discussion out of many that has to do with Ray William Johnson and his article has been deleted multiple times.

At this point, Mr. C.C., you seem to think I have a vendetta against you. I don't. I do think you have a vendetta against RWJ's inclusion, though. You're acting as if you're the final arbiter of truth for this article, and it's pissing me off. How about you go through and remove all the links of the ones I pointed out that don't pass your smell test and get back to me? If you're willing to leave links up that are not acceptable, then you should have no problem with RWJ's inclusion. There was a time when Philip DeFranco wasn't on this either, and I fought for his inclusion. Let's have some civility here. I am not going after you, I am going after your interpretation of the rules. PokeHomsar (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if these links had been submitted before, but here goes:

http://lybio.net/ray-william-johnson-harry-baals/comedy/

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/02/05/businessinsider-top-viral-videos-of-the-week-5-2011-2.DTL

http://www.inishowennews.com/011YouTubeViral078.htm

http://arbiteronline.com/2011/02/07/popshots-equals-three-goes-viral/ PokeHomsar (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A couple of these articles have been posted, but you know that Mr. C.C has his personal goal set up to keep RWJ off of the list due to his obvious and pretty poor excuses as they may be. HOWEVER, The 3rd article is one that I have not yet seen and it is set up in the exact way Wikipedia asks for such recognition. That is a winning article to me (among the many others previously posted). But YouKnowWho is going to make the most absurd 'Doesn't mention notability' 'Not from a reliable source' 'Written like a column' BS that he has been using day by day so far. I think he needs to be removed as a Wikipedia Editor since he brings personal opinion into the matter, unless he can provide a reference that gives information about him, his notability, and his reliability as a WP Editor, howeverI don't think that is possible. haha --Underwoodl06 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Ray William Johnson

There have been multiple discussions on the YouTuber Ray William Johnson. The sources provided to try and get him added to the list have not met the requirements. No suitable news articles have been presented, thus what I am saying in the discussions is being twisted into something it's not. They don't agree with the Wikipedia rules that have to do with reliable sources and seem to have an issue with them being enforced. So this request for comments is being brought forth so this Ray William Johnson issue can be laid to rest once and for all. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please consider the links above that have been added since the last time you commented. PokeHomsar (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, You are being twisted? Most of the presented articles cover the basic requirements needed via the Wikipedia Rules and Guidelines and match, or out do in quality those of other sources used for reference on the page which requires this talk page. SoWhy has already stated himself that one of the articles he has seen meets the requirements and is acceptable for reference meaning that YouTube user Ray William Johnson has the qualities to be added on to the page aforementioned. Mr. C.C has seen and is constantly turning down any page on his own terms of validity and notability. SoWhy's accepted source hasbeen denied by this user but he sticks with the source being acceptable for recognition. It seems there is a personal opinion on his mind as to why Johnson should not be accepted for the list and he will not stop denying his recognition for the page after multiple sources have been submitted and meet all requirements. I believe that many sources submitted have enough information and come from reliable sources which give all rights to add Ray William Johnson to the 'List of YouTube Personalities' page on Wikipedia.--Underwoodl06 (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not misinterpret my comments. I only said that the source was reliable and covers him, but I also said that it's alone not sufficient extensive coverage as required by our notability guidelines. Regards SoWhy 10:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Looked through the sources...only one that stuck out as meeting WP:RS was the sfgate one, which only mentioned him for "Videos of the week." I don't think that's quite enough to merit an entry here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources are not sufficient for his addition to the list. Same as what Ohnoitsjamie said, there is the one but its not enough for his inclusion. Use that one for a example of what to look for and present as a WP:RS. Kyle1278 03:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I bet any of you that I can go through this whole list of people and find sources that aren't news articles and have less information than most of the references submitted for RWJ's admission to the list, and a bunch of them that don't even work. I mean, it has already been shown that some don't work, but your solution instead of removing the person like you losers did RWJ, you tell us to find other sources for them to keep them on the list. Once again, I should make a topic asking editors to submit whether or not some of the editors here are personally biased against Ray William Johnson's inclusion on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underwoodl06 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Accusing people of having a personal bias is not really going to sway people. Nor is pointing out that "other stuff exists". If you find any entries to the list that fail to satisfy the notability guideline(s), then the correct way is to remove them as well, not add another person that fails them. Regards SoWhy 12:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but personal attacks are not going to help get him on the list any quicker. You need to read WP:CIVIL along with WP:NPA and various related information. What you are doing Underwood is harming the Wikipedia process. You need to comment on the content not the people. You are not helping to make a good editing environment by doing the later. What you FEEL is irrelevant. Wikipedia isn't edited based on FEELINGS. Feelings get in the way of editing objectively. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow you guys are really asses, and I agree theres several people in that lsit that shouldnt be there, isnt your job as editors to remove them as well ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.172.49 (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nichole337?

Does she deserve to be on here? I mean she does have well over 50 million views , hundreds of videos and a huge following