Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.65.102.220 (talk) at 19:26, 4 April 2014 (→JonTron). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

JonTron

AfDs for this article:
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 This template must be substituted.
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)[reply]
  • 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) This template must be substituted.[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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) This template must be substituted.[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Facepalm 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)[reply]
  • 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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) This template must be substituted.[reply]

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)[reply]
My apologies. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) This template must be substituted.[reply]

keep, he's a saint

–reference to game grumps but mostly celebrating his independent show

–more coverage of his independent works

I would also like to contest articles you shot down before

–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) This template must be substituted.[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JonTron_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=602765789"