Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JonTron (3rd nomination)

JonTron

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/JonTron
• Articles for deletion/JonTron (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/JonTron (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/JonTron (5th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/JonTron (6th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/JonTron (web series)

JonTron (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)

A first AfD resulted in consensus to delete in 2013. A second AfD was closed last month as a speedy close under WP:CSD#G4; however, since the material was substantially different, I accept the fact the latest speedy deletion is not uncontroversial and am happy to restore the article and start another community discussion, which will be allowed to run its full course. This was prompted by a request from Jon himself.

This is a procedural nomination only and I am neutral on the matter of deletion or keeping. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• The fact that this individual is a co-founder of a popular website, in addition to his success on YouTube, means that this article is surely notable enough to Keep. Petitjaque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petitjaque (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Petitjaque (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I might be biased because I like him, but Keep. I don't know what the previous sources were, but the current sources are, in my opinion, sufficient. Weigh my opinion as you wish. I've changed my position to Neutral per Sergecross73. Bluefist ^talk 02:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• The vast majority of sources right now, are Youtube videos, Reddit articles, and Twitter posts. None of these are considered third party, reliable sources that would establish notability. The few articles that actually are useable, like this Kotaku source, hardly say anything about him at all. Its merely a passing mention of "Hey, have you heard of him?" and they linked a video. This is not the sort of coverage that establishes notability. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I've withdrawn my opinion. I double checked the sources and they are indeed dubious in quality. I swear I took a closer look yesterday and they looked just barely acceptable. I still believe he's notable, but there exists no WP:SOURCES I can find to confirm. Bluefist ^talk 19:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• If he helped create a video game, keep. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 02:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's not a criteria for meeting the WP:GNG. Using that logic, all of the hundreds of staff who help make your Halo and Grand Theft Auto games would all deserve their own article. They don't. They wouldn't meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Luckily, there's more to him helping make a video game in this case. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 22:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Would you like to share any of that, backed by reliable third party sources that discuss JonTron specifically and in-depth? -- ferret (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Not really. As discussed below, he doesn't meet the GNG, which is the relevant criteria here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I say Keep. I think the sources are sufficient and I believe Jon himself is suitably notable. 2601:9:1B80:837:245F:5D95:6380:AADA (Butts) 02:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — 2601:9:1B80:837:245F:5D95:6380:AADA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I also say Keep. Just as some random guy, but there are people on youtube with much smaller fanbases and less views who have wikipedia pages, and the page itself is sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.69.250 (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2014‎— 24.228.69.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• That's not a valid argument. That doesn't defend Jon Tron's article, it just rationalizes deleting the other articles that are even worse off. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am in charge of http://gamegrumps.wikia.com/ Keep. If that helps. PressFartToContinue ^talk 02:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)— PressFartToContinue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No, it wouldn't. No one's status makes a difference in these discussions. It doesn't matter who you are, it just matters on whether or not you can make a Wikipedia policy-based argument for keeping or deleting. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep the page for sure. Jon is notable enough and the sources all check out. There's no real reason to get rid of it, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.90.250 (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — 72.160.90.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Although the article may be well written and have verifiable sources, if the subject isn't notable, then there is indeed a reason to get rid of it. -IagoQnsi 04:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep this page. Jafari has made a name for himself in the gaming community as a reviewer, satirist, and designer for video games, and his popularity and influence is highly notable. Jafari deserves his Wikipedia entry. X249J (Talk, 22:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)— X249J (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I say Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheddarface (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Cheddarface (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• WP:NOTAVOTE. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• I say Keep. The page itself contains sufficient citations, and more trustworthy sources are available should others disagree. Moreover, Jon Jafari's Internet work - which includes creating an incredibly popular review show, co-founding popular video website NormalBoots.com, and co-creating Let's Play franchise Game Grumps that, according to Social Blade, is currently the 93rd most influential YouTube channel - has influenced web media to the point of justifying a Wikipedia page. Finally, I posit that the only reason Jon's page is up for deletion is because he creates web content. If he achieved his level of success producing content in traditional media, nobody would be questioning his status on Wikipedia. LeiAdeline— LeiAdeline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

JonTron's show may be popular but it lacks sources to indicate its notability, NormalBoots lacks an article and thus does not appear to be notable, and Game Grumps is indeed notable and has its own article, but notability is not inherited by being involved with a notable topic (e.g. Game Grumps' Ross and Danny are also huge contributors to the channel, but neither of them has an article). Lastly, Wikipedia welcomes articles about subjects who are notable from any field (in fact, Wikipedia even has a separate notability guideline just for web content), but those subjects must still meet the notability guideline. -IagoQnsi 05:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• I say Keep. Jon has certainly become very notable, and his peer, Arin Hanson, also has a Wikipedia page, which is a non-issue. The two have worked closely together on a show which also has, again, a non-issue Wikipedia page. With his strong popularity, and the fact that one can read about the other two subjects, I feel that to deny this page would create an unnecessary, and inconvenient denial of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.53.130 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — 199.102.53.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Notability is not inherited, and Arin Hanson is considered notable for reasons beyond his involvement with JonTron and Game Grumps, such as his work for MTV, his voice acting roles in several notable games (TOME, the game JonTron voice acted in, does not already have an article), and his association in Starbomb. Being involved in Game Grumps also does not indicate notability; Danny, Ross, Barry, and Suzy are also major contributors to Game Grumps who lack their own articles. Deleting this article would not make important information unavailable, as the important content from this page could be merged into the Game Grumps article (and "JonTron" could be made to redirect to that article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by IagoQnsi (talk • contribs) 03:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• I can see where Wikipedia is coming from. They fear the rapid influx of Youtubers that deem themselves relevant enough for a Wikipedia page. But, the fact that you had to state that this isn't a majority vote is sort of backwards isn't it? If there is a boat load of people saying yes KEEP this page up wouldn't that make it relevant/significant? Even with that I can still see how that may be an issue. If it were solely up to a majority vote every popular kid in every high school would have a Wikipedia page. Regardless, a quick visit to his page and a Google search can clear up and quips you may have as to whether or not the page should stay up. I can't help but wonder if this is really a result of someone not taking Youtubers seriously rather than a policy issue. Keep Purcival (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)— Purcival (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

One or two dozen people reading a tweet and placing a vote doesn't indicate notability. I could get a couple dozen of my friends to all go to the United States article and vote that it should be deleted, but that wouldn't indicate that the United States isn't notable. Wikipedia discussions are not settled by the most popular arguments, but by the most merited ones. That notice at the top of the page serves to deter anyone who are coming just to place a vote and have no intentions of making a useful contribution to the discussion. While JonTron may be very popular, that does not necessarily indicate notability. Wikipedia is very open to having lots of articles about YouTubers, but merely having a lot of subscribers doesn't indicate notability. SkyDoesMinecraft, for example, is the 16th most subscribed YouTube channel with 7.8 million subscribers, but it does not have an article. Notability must be established through secondary sources and verifiable claims of importance, not through subscriber counts. -IagoQnsi 05:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Clerical note: JonTron has sent out a tweet encouraging fans to voice support for the article. In the interest of sustaining a fair and balanced discussion, I feel it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that the discussion will be settled based on the merits of the arguments made, not by the number of users making those arguments. -IagoQnsi 02:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. The man is definitly notable enough to have an article. He has nearly 1 MILLION subscribers. You can be an unbelievably obscure movie actor and get a page, but having a million followers as a content creator on the internet isn't enough? Come on now. The YouTuber is a rapidly growing profession and people like him are only ever going to become even more notable, even if you don't deem him worthy enough now (for some reason), the article is really solid with sources and everything, and you might as well leave it up as his notability will only increase. Pureownege75 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Pureownege75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• It doesn't matter how many subscribers or followers you have on social media. Its whether or not they receive coverage in reliable, third party sources. Articles written about the subject at hand. This is an encyclopedia, not a Youtube popularity contest. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: I've never even heard of him (which is surprising, considering how much time I spend watching Game Theory and Tobuscus and all kinds of other YouTubers in the same vein as him), but the article, while it's got a few small issues, is definitely good enough for here. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No matter how well written the article is, what matters is whether or not the subject of the article is notable; article content does not determine notability. -IagoQnsi 03:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm I seem to have forgotten to mention the good sourcing it has. Yes, many are from YouTube and Twitter and the like, but there's still plenty that are fine. Thanks for pointing that out. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 13:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: His video series has been very popular for many years now on both his own website normal boots as well as on youtube. The fact he is running a popular website along with a youtube channel should be factored in. The article does a good job detailing his work and his projects past and present. It seems like there would be little debate if he was someone who has produced this much content in a medium such as TV or Film or even a newspaper. Seeing as old media is quickly becoming less and less relevant we should treat new media figure heads with a substantial body of works with the same amount of credibility and stature.
  • Here is his tag on Kotaku with multiple articles about his works including a long one about his break from Game Grumps -- this makes the suggestion of merging his info into the Game Grumps article less viable
  • Here is his tag on Screw Attack with multiple articles of substantial length -- his departure from Game Grumps generated a large amount of notability along with articles about his appearance on live panels at multiple gaming/new media conventions.
  • Here here and here -- are just three examples of the over 100+ articles on Destructoid that discuss Jon's works going back many years covering his time prior to joining Gamer Grumps as well as after he left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.17.169 (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — 71.177.17.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's all well and good, but none of those sources seems to indicate notability. There are some brief articles about videos that JonTron made, but those articles all focus on the game that JonTron played in whatever video, and aren't about JonTron himself. The only articles that do lend some notice to Jon himself are the articles about Game Grumps changing when Jon left; that is, JonTron only gets mentioned because of his involvement with the more notable entity Game Grumps. Not to mention, that these articles are all very short except for the Kotaku article, which talks more about Danny and Ross (Jon's successors) and about the fan response to the changes. It's true, there are a lot of minor mentions about JonTron, but none of them indicate notability. Just because a subject has been associated with notable things in minor capacities on many occasions does not make them notable by themselves; notability is not inherited. -IagoQnsi 04:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete and merge into Game Grumps. As many others have pointed out, this article has a lot of references. However, merely having references does not establish notability; the subject must meet the general notability guideline. Looking through the list of references, most of them are primary sources -- links to YouTube videos/channels and JonTron's twitter -- that can be skipped over, as notabilility is not established by primary sources. References from unverifiable sources (e.g. reddit discussions, personal blogs, etc.) can also be overlooked, as Wikipedia requires reliable sources. References that are about Game Grumps as a whole and not JonTron specifically also do not sufficiently establish notability because notability is not inherited. Now that we've narrowed down the source list to just the ones that might establish notability, let's see what's left:
  • A brief Kotaku article about bootleg Pokemon games played by JonTron - the article is more focused on the games than on JonTron and does not inherently demonstrate notability
  • Some short articles by Destructoid about games JonTron has played or his involvement in Game Grumps. These give weak indication of notability, but without more articles from sources besides Destructoid, I don't think these sufficiently establish notability.
  • An IMDb article showing his role in TOME - it seems that TOME does not meet the GNG, so being involved with it does not establish notability
  • A link about a JonTron easter egg in DLC Quest - the link is dead, but even if another reference about the same fact were found, notability is not inherited so a minor easter egg doesn't show notability

None of these few references indicate notability strongly enough to suggest that JonTron is notable enough for an article. Unless a reference could be found that strongly indicates notability, I think this content is better suited for a JonTron section in the Game Grumps article. -IagoQnsi 03:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: However, I'd push that this page be re-orientated towards Jon Jafari as a notable person (meaning renaming the page to "Jon Jafari") who is a notable youtuber. As far as merging with GameGrumps I'd have to disagree given that he is no longer with GameGrumps and his current wiki page is more than just GG. I will agree that more notable citations are needed but we don't need to adhere to the guidelines so closely (except for primary citations of course).Avitus27 (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, not every reference on an article needs to establish notability. That is most certainly not necessary, but there does need to be *some* sources that establish notability, and at present, it seems that none of the existing sources do that. And yes, it is true that JonTron has done other things outside of Game Grumps, but it seems that pretty much everything he's done that indicates any level of notability was in relation to Game Grumps. He has had brief/minor/distant involvement with some other notable subjects, but that doesn't mean he needs to have his own article; the articles for those other subjects could link to JonTron's section in the Game Grumps article, or they could simply not mention him at all in cases where his involvement was so minor. -IagoQnsi 04:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep, Why the hell delete it, Look at all the hard work that's been put into it, Do you people just love f*cking with good content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.24.66 (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — 101.161.24.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am moving this comment to the bottom of the discussion, as it was placed directly in the middle of Salvidrim!'s comment and subsequently removed entirely by ThomasO1989. However harsh and sarcastic the comment may be, it's not necessarily bad faith (though it doesn't belong in the middle of another comment). -IagoQnsi 06:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep What makes a particular let's player noteworthy? Robbaz King of Sweden plays video games and raises money for Doctor's without borders, PewdiePie has a wiki page for doing pretty much what everyone else does. Jon has had various writing and script roles that put him behind other shows. Game Grumps is a fraction because he's also held a long running internet series, contributed to Channel Awesome and that guy with glasses, if that doesn't establish him as notable, then what would? He's distinguished himself from lets plays alone, pursuing his own show, and he's written for numerous others 92.28.192.10 (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)— 92.28.192.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• keep, he's a saint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.102.220 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 4 April 2014— 173.65.102.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• WP:NOTAVOTE -- ferret (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Is this the kind of articles you are looking for to confirm notability?
• http://www.destructoid.com/jontron-died-and-on-the-third-day-rose-again-262420.phtml

–reference to game grumps but mostly celebrating his independent show

• http://arcadesushi.com/top-jontron-episodes/

–more coverage of his independent works

• http://sgconvention.com/blog/jontron-angry-joe-game-theory-and-more-coming-sgc-2014
• this one I'm somewhat shaky on it's mostly an announcement about his attendance to a convention but does cover his volume of work
• http://www.screwattack.com/news/normalboots-returns
• http://www.kaleonaopio.com/entertainment/2014/02/13/normal-boots-are-back/
• http://www.bubblews.com/news/2216103-normalboots-is-re-booted
• mostly coverage of the relaunch of a website that he started but shows notability outside of game grumps
• http://indiestatik.com/2014/03/31/most-expensive-game-jam/
• he is of some note in this incident, though this one might be more about the entire production of game_jam
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJSMgWWzcvc
• Not sure how much weight an interview from a youtube channel counts?

I would also like to contest articles you shot down before

• http://kotaku.com/5907309/kinect-star-wars-is-a-terrible-game-but-damn-if-it-isnt-fun/all
• http://kotaku.com/a-journey-through-bootleg-pokemon-games-1524340300
• http://kotaku.com/5896732/laugh-through-16-minutes-of-this-bubsy-collection-review/all

–you said these articles are all about the games hes playing but it's more highlighting jontron's own show and his humorous take on the games in the videos. The last one being the strongest case. They already had several articles about kinect star wars for example, this is to highlight his specific video about it and not the game itself, which at the time had so much additional coverage. Dynemanti (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)— Dynemanti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'll go through these sources one by one:

• • Destructoid link: very brief, very casual bulletin mentioning JonTron leaving Game Grumps and linking to two videos he's made. With a lot of other good references, this could contribute a little to establishing notability, but on its own its not much.
  • top 10 episodes on ArcadeSushi: ArcadeSushi doesn't appear to be a reliable source -- I can find no information about it from secondary sources, and they seem to be more of a BuzzFeed-like entertainment site rather than a proper verifiable news source
  • SGConvention link: tiny bio on website of non-notable convention, doesn't establish any notability
  • 3 links about NormalBoots: NormalBoots is not notable enough to have its own article, so the fact that JonTron founded it doesn't establish any notability
  • GAME_JAM article: JonTron played a minor role in GAME_JAM, which is a footnote in the history of Polaris, which is one of several subsidiaries of Maker Studios. Maker Studios is notable, but one of its subsidiary's failed reality show's video makers is not.
  • J1 Studios YouTube video: J1 Studios doesn't constitute a reliable source, so this video doesn't establish notability
  • Kotaku links: extremely brief articles, more "hey look at this cool thing" than actual verifiable journalism, about content JonTron has made rather than JonTron himself (across all three of those articles, I count two sentences that include any information about who JonTron is).

Of all of those links, only the Destructoid article could even remotely be considered as one that establishes notability, and even that one is quite a stretch. I'm sorry, but there are just no sources that establish JonTron to be a sufficiently notable subject. -IagoQnsi 21:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ok I am beginning to understand the kind of information you are looking for, thanks for addressing each individually. I just have two questions now. First would those sources talking about his work then be used to establish notability for his Youtube show JonTron and could this entry be converted to information on that instead of the person himself? Parenting all current information in the article under that, instead of gamegrumps? Secondly what is the issue with arcade sushi exactly? They have a regular staff with editorial oversight, not sure what makes them less reliable than something like kotakuDynemanti (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 1) Of the articles I've seen, none of them established the notability of Jon Jafari or of the JonTron Show, so neither of those topics could have their own article without better sources for notability. Parenting the information under the Game Grumps article, however, is most certainly an option; in fact, I think it's exactly the route that should be taken here. 2) Arcade Sushi may indeed have strong editorial oversight, but they are not exclusively a news site. They do cover some serious news, but they also cover miscellaneous things that they find interesting or humorous that aren't necessarily newsworthy or notable. Basically, they appear to act more or less as a fansite rather than a reliable source in their coverage of JonTron. -IagoQnsi 20:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm sorry, but there just isn't significant coverage by third party, reliable sources to the point to meet the WP:GNG. The sources presented so far, either aren't considered reliable, or do not discuss JonTron in detail. He needs to be the main subject of the sources, and discussed significantly. I just don't see it. Youtube channels and footage of him playing video games do not count towards notability on Wikpedia. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - Concur with Sergecross73. Lack of reliable sources showing direct notability of JonTron. Notability is not inherited from his shows, the fact that other Youtubers may or may not have articles is irrelevant, and popularity doesn't matter. -- ferret (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• (Edit conflict) Keep per copious third-party citations and evidence of high popularity. If we had to get rid of all articles without in-depth coverage in a variety of sources that focused on them above anything else, we'd lose a huge percentage of our fictional characters, for example. (Rather than WP:Other stuff exists, we keep those as their notability is well-supported in other ways.) I think the best argument in favor of deletion, though still not one I support, is redundancy compared to Game Grumps. Tezero (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Tezero:, can you point out which 4 or 5 reliable sources are providing significant coverage enough to meet the GNG? It looks like there's a lot until you start wading through it all. So much of them are his own Youtube videos, Reddit articles, or social media posts. The few that are useable, http://kotaku.com/5972934/watch-this-silly-source-filmmaker-re-creation-of-two-youtubers-absolutely-losing-it/all like this Kotaku source], are extremely short and barely mention him. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hey Tezero, I just wanted to throw out to you as well that fictional characters that are notable usually are covered with in-depth coverage from third-party sources. That's not your plot in those articles; that's your development and reception information, which is the part that gives notability to the character and not its role in a fictional work. I think you'll find in those cases that the character articles you write actually are covered significantly in reliable, third-party sources. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 13:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Sergecross73:, I looked more in-depth, and admittedly the sources as used in the article didn't really establish his popularity. I've added information about that, though, as well as some reception. Tezero (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• @Red Phoenix:, there's a difference between in-depth coverage in third-party sources and being the main subject. It's unlikely that any of the Sonic character articles up right now will get deleted anytime soon, but only Sonic and maybe one or two more fit the latter case. (I wasn't even just talking about the articles I work on; the number of game characters with reliable dedicated features on them is probably in the double digits.) Tezero (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• The sources you added still don't demonstrate significant coverage, they're all very minimal, passing mentions. This Destructoid source you added is entirely based off of Nintendo Pikmin trivia, and barely contains a full sentence actually about JonTron. The other Destructoid source was mostly about GameGrumps, not him in particular. I mean, its fine if you want to add little bits of passing mentions to articles, but it's hardly the type of coverage establishes notability. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• What about the Crave Online one? It's got a good full paragraph on him. Also, the first Kotaku source and the first Destructoid one mention that he's popular on YouTube, comparably so to Egoraptor. Tezero (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly, they mention him. Passing mentions. Fine for adding to articles, but not for notability. I will concede that at least the "Crave Online" article has a paragraph on him, though even then, 1/7th of the article was focused on him. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• I recognize that, for opinions about worthiness or quality, a few passing mentions aren't considered enough here. But those pages mention more than that: they mention that he's a popular YouTuber, comparably so to Egoraptor. Egoraptor has a well-established article, and while notability is not inherited, I think Egoraptor provides a good baseline. In other words, we can get directly from the sources that JonTron has a certain amount of notability rather than having to glean it from overall coverage. Tezero (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• All of this about Egoraptor unfortunately falls under other stuff. And as you also already noted, Egoraptor's notability cannot be inherited by JonTron. There's also a difference between verifiability versus notability. Yes, we can find sources that verify that JonTron is a popular YouTuber. But it's not the same thing as notability. -- ferret (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it is, or at least it's one of several paths to notability. I followed your link to WP:N and, of the categories listed, JonTron seems most like a "creative professional" or "entertainer". I contend that he fulfills #1 and #3 out of the four possible criteria for creative professionals and #2 out of the three for entertainers. More generally, the text states that "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", and JonTron also fulfills that. Neither one of these is a guarantee of notability, but neither is anything else. Tezero (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• As Masem already points out below, he fails WP:CREATIVE because it refers to "periodical articles or reviews". Stuff from blogs like Kotaku or Destructoid do not fit that definition at all. Not sure ENTERTAINER could be applied either, considering just about any of the claims are made merely by the fanbase, not by sources. I don't think either were created to defend internet personalities like this... Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Wow, what a mess... Okay, so let's talk a little bit about notability, shall we? What makes a person notable is significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. "Significant coverage" indicates that the coverage is focused on the subject, which none of the sources here are. Because notability is not inherited, either, notability of his series, if it is, does not reflect on his individual notability for coverage. "Reliable, third-party sources" indicates that the sources are independent of the subject and demonstrate a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. This is not present here, either. Significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources is a requirement for an article to be here because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I'd like to remind the editors here, as well, of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in regards to a few of the arguments here. We need to keep discussion specifically to the article at hand and the notability of the subject. However, to those brought here by Jon's message, I'd encourage all of you to learn a little bit about Wikipedia, notability, and what good articles look like. I'm sure any of us here who are regulars would be more than glad to teach and train new editors on the finer points of notability and article writing. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 13:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not so simple, I don't believe. If it were, this discussion wouldn't even be occurring. I see a lot of good points for both sides, and while I am for JonTron's article staying (being a fan), there's a largely vague nature about some of Wikipedia's idea of notability, significant coverage, and reliable third party sources. This discussion I assume is here to find that line at how notable is notable enough, what is a reliable third party source, and how much coverage is significant coverage? I hope you see it isn't as black and white. Personally, I find the sources sited in this discussion to be quite substantial, whilst others dispute it. I guess that's why we're discussing. Darrark (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)— Darrark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Agreed. It's also not as though all the support votes here are coming from users JonTron invited. Tezero (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia has guidelines for inclusion. I do not see an attempt here at meeting them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) -- ferret (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Merge to Game Grumps. If you take out all the youtube video references, the TGWTG videos, and other non-reliable sources from this article, you're left with almost nothing to support an article. GG is a notable youtube outlet, and while he's no long associated with it, that's where a brief bio of him and anyone else associated with GG can be included (outside of probably Egoraptor who is notable beyond GG). --MASEM (t) 14:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The relevant guideline here is WP:CREATIVE: Creative professionals are reliable if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Has JonTron's collective YouTube work been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles? Nintendolife, Kotaku 2 3 4 5, Destructoid 2 3 4 5. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Kotaku and Destroid are not periodicals, nor are the linked articles "reviews" of JonTron's work, just pointing out "hey, this exists, go laugh". --MASEM (t) 20:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - After weeding through the Reddit, youtube and similar worthless pseudo-sources, there simply is not sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to write a reasonably detailed article about the subject. Yes, he clearly has some fans (is 16 !votes out of 22 a WP:SPA record?), but that is not notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete How many times is this page going to be remade by fanboys and how many times are we going to have to delete it? I think these pages should be protected from being re-created by admins. Maybe have to make a request for creation or something. This page has been deleted and re-created several times, and there are none or very few sources to denote notability. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Time to WP:SALT it, perhaps? Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: recreation is not a reason for a delete vote. KonveyorBelt 16:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I read the issue here: User_talk:Salvidrim!#Jontron.2FJon_Jafari. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Fails to meet the third party reliable references standard as many have already pointed out. Intothatdarkness 20:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of reliable sources, lack of notability, page being remade by fanboys, I support the suggestion to protect it from being re-created. RavageMX (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Game Grumps. The Kotaku sources are about Game Grumps. No other significant hits other than passing mentions in the WP:VG/RS search. JT is definitely a figure, but he doesn't pass the GNG just yet. This said, this AfD is likely in vain because it is a matter of time before a feature is done on him—but that is then and this is now. Keep the redirect since it's a likely search term. God, good luck to whomever's closing this beast.  czar ♔ 01:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete I am not even fully familiar with the sites rules yet and I can tell the reasons given to keep this article alive are not well thought out. The main 3 arguments for keeping revolve around John being "Popular", which is a vague term in reality, "Merging", and "there are things he has been involved with that have their own articles".

1. Popularity doesn't mean anything at all. If Angry Joe Vargus, Alpha Omega Sin, Blunty3000, Manperish, Retsupurae, and darksydephil don't have their own Wikipedia pages, than why should Jon Tron be an exception? 2 of the guys I named above have been paid by gaming companies for advertisements, one has been awarded, 3 have large dedicated followings on youtube and twitter, 2 have actually influenced the creation of other channels and a few websites, one works at a popular game studio, and NONE of these people have a Wikipedia page. So why should Jon Tron get away with it? I would even push for removing the The Spoony Experiment for the same reasons.
2. We can't merge the page into Game Grumps because he is no longer with Game Grumps, and some of the references that have been added and removed have nothing to do with GG at all (or even him really, other than giving a small nod his way acknowledging his existence for 3 seconds). Half of the references don't meet the reliability guidelines to be included in pages that are already active, let alone a new page.
3. You can't give an argument of, "If Charlie has a Wikipedia page, Jim can too". It doesn't work like that. Why would we make an article about the guy who brought John Carmack donuts when he made Doom or that guy who put up the flags in a Samuel L. Jackson movie? Parts of John Trons cast and the very studio he works with don't have pages. There are individuals more popular the him who are with big companies that HAVE articles (Machinama) and they don't have articles even by association. There should not be any exceptions!

(Before some one tries it, yes I know "Angry Joe" redirects to a page, but it has nothing to do with Joe himself.) TheRealAfroMan (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Actually, on the merging aspect, it is completely fair for a work that may be notable but where the people currently involved or were involved in the past are for the most part not notable to have a cast list with brief bios on the cast , past and present. In this case, save for Arin, the rest of the cast including JonTRon could be listed here; Arin's would have a main-link and a brief summary here. Consider also that while this article is "long" for a short bio, once you strip out all youtube and non-RS links and information only cited to them, you basically have a single paragraph to be included and merged to GG, about Normal Boots, the JonTron show, being one of the creators of GG and then wanting to move on ~year later, and some additional voice and animation work. "JonTron" is a searchable term so absolute deletion is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 06:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete or merge: I am not convinced that the page adequately demonstrates notability via third-party reliable sources. A few mentions here and there in Kotaku and other places isn't exactly firm proof that the subject is a notable individual. Many of the citations used are self-published sources, and it appears that there has been an attempt to puff up the references section so that the subject may appear more notable than he actually is. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - just not enough reliable secondary sources. Orser67 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: While I still feel that the article probably satisfies WP:N's requirements for individuals, I'm surprised this discussion is still open, as few support votes have come from users with a history of previous edits. Tezero (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

AfDs are held open a week before closure, usually (so that everyone gets a chance to participate) czar ♔ 00:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as an avid fan myself, i still do not think that he meets the guidelines, and most of the supports are from people who saw his tweet and came here to protest it, many YouTubers that are bigger then Jon don't have on either (Uberhaxornova and Angry Joe off the top of my head) and he does not need one, all notability is WP:INHERIT and most sources are not from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMesquito (talk • contribs) 01:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Strong Delete - having billions of twelve-year old fans on YouTube and getting articles written about you in obscure video game blogs does not notability make. --YasminPerry (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Struck as returning blocked user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• KeepProcedurally, I see no real reason in the nomination for deletion. This AfD and the article are both a mess. But AfD is not cleanup. What perhaps could be done is to steer the article away from being about JonTron the channel, and more towards Jon Jafari the person. If we turn the article to being more about Jon Jafari as opposed to his show, more of those "passing mentions" in articles about the Game Grumps can be better used. KonveyorBelt 16:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Konveyor Belt, the "procedural" part was because Salvidrim closed the prior AFD deletion discussion a bit prematurely, and then had second thoughts on his decision, so he relisted it. The deletion argument, prominent in both the 2nd nom he closed prematurely, and all across the discussion, is that there simply isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. AFD is not cleanup, but no one proposed deleting it because it was sloppy. Quite the opposite, nothing you said was a valid reason for keeping it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, if it does not get kept this third time it can't be reinstated at all later right? Or does the second one count because there were second thoughts? TheRealAfroMan (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is any rule like that. Even if the article is salted someone can try to submit a new version per WP:AFC if they believe that at a future point JonTron has become notable. Of course it will need to be of better quality than the deleted version to be accepted. This recently happened with Madison Eagles which was deleted 4 times, recreated per an accepted afc submission and survived a 5th AFD as a WP:SNOW. Its currently at deletion review but it is leaning towards endorsing the keep close.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)