Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clint Basinger

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Basinger

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This would usually be a draftify due to being a very undersourced BLP but, since an identical copy already exists in draft, that's not an option. It looks like this got copied and pasted over after the draft declined.

Whilst his number of subscribers would indicate that he should be notable, I'm not finding that much coming up when searching his name. Firstly, I found this, which, assuming it is RS, is quite good. The second best I found was this but it just looks like a transcript of one of his videos. Lastly, I found this brief article in a reliable source.

I would say that he does not pass WP:BIO but I'm happy to be proved wrong. Spiderone 09:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Whilst his number of subscribers would indicate that he should be notable" strikes me as risking WP:BIGNUMBER, though I'm not the type to comb through Youtuber articles looking for arguments for deletion. Still, this does seem like a decidedly early draft. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to it being retained at Draft:Clint Basinger; it was declined by User:Eagleash and I'd be surprised if it would pass even with the 3 sources mentioned above in my nom Spiderone 12:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm leaning towards a deletion that's a de facto draftification right now, but I'd like to see if anyone knows some better sources before I put in a vote (I've seen some brilliant WP:HEY work done lately). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A BEFORE search was difficult because of the massive number of hits that his name gets; I was just reading article after article where he either wasn't even mentioned or was mentioned only in passing. I've also tried finding coverage under "Lazy Game Reviews" and "LGR Tech Tales" Spiderone 12:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks the reliable sourcing that needs to be the basis for any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_YouTubers. I hate to pile on, but this person is not anywhere near notable. Just to be sure, I looked for several searches online. I found zero newspaper of record articles about him. He has thirty (30) connections on LinkedIn. His business has 105.8k followers on Twitter, but he has only forty-three (43) followers. I found several articles on Ars Technica mentioning him, but they're about other topics, not him. I also found an article in a local Cincinnati paper that has his picture. That's it. Please ping me if you find anything else. I would not oppose a redirect to his channel on YouTube. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and discussions above the article subject fails the notability guideline found at WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. it is already in draft. Alex-h (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.