Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JonTron (5th nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:46, 28 August 2016

JonTron

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Article has been deleted, then remade, deleted, then remade, deleted then remade. How long is this cycle going to continue? Article is not notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have an actual policy-based reason for deletion? clpo13_(talk) 19:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not pass notability. Fans keep remaking the page in spite of the constant deletions and never attempt to justify why the article should exist. It's frustrating to see people thumb their noses at Wikipedia rules. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nominator. Entirely puffery - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD !votes without rationales are significantly less helpful to other commenters and closers than policy-based arguments. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per nomination, fairly obviously. Please don't be querulous - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been deleted a full FOUR times already. Those rulings still stand. They were not contested. Instead fans just remade the page. The burden is now on those who think the page should stand to prove their case. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that !votes that make no comment whatosever on the content of the article being discussed are usually discounted by closers as they are of little value in evaluating the strength of consensus. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The number of times an article has been deleted is irrelevant to its quality or notability. I have seen earlier versions of the article before they were deleted. They were short and had little to no citations. This article is not short and is full of citations. It requires improvement, and should be tagged with the appropriate templates so that it may be fixed by other users, rather than deleting it and forcing contributors to start over again. --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has clearly been bombarded with references, making it difficult for those of us who have better things to do than look through dozens of references to form an opinion. Could anyone who wants to defend its existence please identify a few (no more than five are needed, and three would be even better) references that demonstrate notability? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're not going to put in the time to examine the references, why bother participating in AFD? clpo13_(talk) 22:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because many of the references are clearly junk, such as Twitter, Facebook and Youtube. In such circumstances it's perfectly reasonable to ask for advice about which are the good references. That gives those who want to keep an article the opportunity to ensure that those who are undecided, such as I, are looking at the right sources. If you prefer to be belligerent rather than provide help to participants making a decision then don't be surprised if people draw negative conclusions about your motives. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry for being brusque. The original rationale that this article should be deleted simply because it was deleted before kind of soured me on the discussion, but I'll take a look at some of the sources. clpo13_(talk) 22:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How has it been "bombarded" exactly? The article doesn't appear to be cluttered with unneeded references, things that are worth a citation have are cited, although granted, some of the sources used could be improved, but that does not make other ones invalid. --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References to establish notability supplied in JonTron#Popularity. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearing in two indie games? - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amassing over 2.7 million subscribers and 300 million views on YouTube? --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As requested, I've taken a look through the sources to find which ones establish notability. There are a lot of references to Twitter, which seems fine since the tweets are being used not for analysis or commentary but simply to prove that someone said or did something (see WP:TWITTER). Here are some sources that look decent: Tubefilter, BBC (somewhat of a passing mention, but the article references his series on bootleg video games), AV Club (also focused on bootleg games), BBC again (this time with Jafari's comments on fan-run World of Warcraft server Nostalrius), TIME (listing him among the top ten memes of 2015...yes, "memes"), and Crave. With the possible exception of Tubefilter (which I'm not familiar with), these are all reliable sources and very much independent of the subject. There are also articles from Destructoid and Kotaku about JonTron vis-à-vis GameGrumps. These all add up to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. clpo13_(talk) 22:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at those sources, identified as the best, in turn. I see no evidence that Tubefilter has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, as required for a source to be considered reliable, but even if we were to accept that the source is an interview, so not independent. This BBC source simply quotes the subject rather than saying anything about him. The AV Club article just reproduces the subject's words about something else, rather than saying anything about him. BBC again just quotes him again. The sum total of the content in TIME is "Jontron (a YouTube show that reviews games)". Crave is again of dubious reliability - I can find no evidence of any reputation for fact checking and accuracy - but again, even if it is reliable, the source only has 80 words about the subject. None of these sources, which have been identified as the best, contributes to notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of sources about the person and the channel from well-established RSes like BBC, A.V. Club, Kotaku, TIME.... I think people dismiss Youtubers and a lot of "internet culture" things because they're not into it, but WP:GNG is the baseline for every article, regardless of topic, and this article's sourcing far exceeds the requirements of GNG, even though admitting that may displease some who would like to see Wikipedia cover more academic/scientific/historical topics and less pop-culture ones. I know "other stuff" is an argument to avoid in AfDs but there is no denying that we have multiple BLPs (Youtubers including) that have passed AfDs with far less strong referencing. I have kept a watchful eye on the latest recreation of the article and even assisted somewhat with the source-finding, and there is a very good reason why I didn't G4 or re-AfD it -- the article now demonstrates that it passes WP:GNG. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we have any BLPs that have passed Afds with less strong referencing than this then that is a problem with those AfD discussions, because the referencing here is egregiously weak. The problem is not prejudice against pop culture, which should certainly be covered on the same basis as other topics, but the attitude that pop culture subjects, especially Internet "personalities", should be exempt from the standards that apply to other articles and allowed to exist on the basis of junk sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references are weak, mainly from non-reliable sources such as blog posts and things on YouTube. A bunch of junk references do not add up to a show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I ultimately agree that the page could benefit from more stronger citations, I would say that in its current state, the article would be better off improved rather than deleted. Throughout the discussion so far, there appear to be 2 common reasons given by those who wish to see the article deleted, "The citations are poor" and "The subject is not notable enough". First off, let's have a look at some of the citations:

Citation 9: JonTron died and on the third day rose again Destructoid article exclusively focusing on Jafari's Hercules Games video)
Citation 10: A Journey Through Bootleg Pokémon Games (Kotaku Australia article exclusively focusing on Jafari's Bootleg Pokemon Games video)
Citation 11: There’s a whole new world of crazy bootleg Disney video games (A.V. Club article exclusively focusing on Jafari's Disney Bootlegs video)
Citation 12: Disney sues over Chinese cartoon 'strikingly similar' to Cars hit (BBC article on Disney knockoffs with multiple paragraphs on Jafari's Disney Bootlegs video)
Citation 14: YouTube Millionaires: JonTron Makes Terrible Video Games Great (Tubefilter interview with Jon Jafari)
Citation 17: Warcraft fans' fury at Blizzard over server closure (BBC article with a paragraph on Jafari's Blizzard rant)
Citation 21: Egoraptor & JonTron twiddle their sticks, play some games (Destructoid article on Jon Jafari and Arin Hanson creating Game Grumps)
Citation 22: Is JonTron and Egoraptor’s Breakup The End of ‘Game Grumps’? Fans Sound Off on Social Media (NewMediaRockstars article on Jafari's departure from Game Grumps)
Citation 23: Fans Are Upset Over YouTube Duo 'Game Grumps' Break-Up (Kotaku article on Jafari's departure from Game Grumps)
Citation 29: A Few Surprising Ways That Pokémon and Science Influenced Each Other (Kotaku article on one of Jafari's appearances on Did You Know Gaming?)
Citation 30: Nintendo bred a new flower to market Pikmin on GameCube!? (Destructoid article on one of Jafari's appearances on Did You Know Gaming?)
Citation 34: Brilliant web animators team on Katy Perry charity cover vid (Monsters and Critics article on Jafari's cover of Katy Perry's Firework)
Citation 43: These Are the Most ‘Googled’ Memes of 2015 (TIME article on the most googled memes of 2015, lists Jafari as number 7)

This article definitely does not have the strongest list of citations overall, but these show that certainly not all of them are "junk". If articles such as Imagine: Animal Doctor can be left on Wikipedia with no citations for 8 years with nothing but an unreferenced template at the the top, I believe an article that has citations, but requires additional ones from stronger sources to be one worthy of keeping. As for notability, if Stuart Ashen, a comedian best known for his YouTube channel with 1.2 million subscribers, is notable enough for an article, why not Jafari, a comedian best known for his YouTube channel with 2.7 million subscribers? I also believe that Jafari's work on Game Grumps, in addition to the popularity of his YouTube channel, and the Maker Studios-produced JonTron's StarCade series are all contributing factors to his notability. In summary, this is an article that is in need of improvement, particularly when we're talking about citations, but not an article that is broken beyond repair. --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, clpo13's analysis above strongly shows how the article's citations, even those from sites such as Twitter are sufficient enough to justify keeping the article in the way they are used and how the subject is notable enough to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I asked above for the best few of the sources, and those that are reliable do not have significant coverage of the subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What counts as significant coverage? Articles that have at least a paragraph featuring Jafari or articles entirely dedicated to him? If the answer is either of those, then there are articles cited on the article with significant coverage (see what clpo13 or I have wrote above for examples). --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why does this keep getting nominated for deletion? I see Destructoid, Time, BBC, Kotaku, and A. V. Club used as citations, I fail to see how the subject fails notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pressstarttoplay (talk • contribs) 13:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And which of those sources have significant coverage of the subject, rather than citing him 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to John Pack Lambert. --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Salvidrim! and clpo13. Philip Terry Graham 18:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Pressstarttoplay --98.114.170.9 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page has two people with paragraphs saying that they went through the sources and confirmed their notability vs a few people who just say "no, remove it because (it's been deleted a bunch/the sources aren't valid/insert other bs arguement here)." In addition, Wikipedia has a bunch of articles for things that are way less notable than a YouTuber with over a million subscribers and have way less sources. 2602:301:770F:8EE0:4D21:8B95:E88B:A68D (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been through the sources above and found them wanting. If there are other articles about way less notable things then they should certainly be deleted, but this discussion is about this article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe 2602:301:770F:8EE0:4D21:8B95:E88B:A68D is making an argument of precedent. If there are countless far worse examples of poorly referenced (or completely unreferenced) articles that have remained for a while on Wikipedia, an example being Imagine: Animal Doctor, an article such as this, full of citations but requiring additional, stronger ones, should be kept and given time to improve. --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How about instead of deleting it for having insufficient sources, (here's a novel concept!) you cite better sources! It's a simple concept to grasp. Deleting a page for having fixable problems is like demolishing a building because of a couple backed up toilets. 2602:301:770F:8EE0:4D21:8B95:E88B:A68D (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked for better sources, but been unable to find any. So if there are any better sources out there I have to rely on other people (you, perhaps) to find them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you just ignore the two comments from people saying they took the time to actually go through the sources and verify them? What the hell do you have against Jonathan? 2602:301:770F:8EE0:4D21:8B95:E88B:A68D (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try to assume good faith. People might agree differently over what can be considered reliable or significant. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the time to go through the half-dozen or so sources identified above as the best and formed the opinion (which others are welcome to dispute) that none of them qualifies as significant coverage of the subject, rather than an interview or quoting him about another subject. I had not heard of Jonathan before seeing this discussion, so have nothing the hell against him. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what counts as significant coverage? I have noticed more than enough articles cited (see the list I wrote above) that either focus solely on Jafari or have at least a paragraph or two on him. --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed shitposting (meme trolling)

Keep JonTron is the Number 1 source of dank memes. Anyone who wants to delete this swood guy is a GROMMET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.69.137.134 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not spam this discussion with memes and jokes. It only makes the argument for keeping the article look weaker. --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simple Google search shows the subject is notable. If there are problems with the article, that's a reason to tag+fix them, not delete the article. People also need to remember WP:DONTBITE: "we must treat newcomers with kindness and patience." Those trying to improve the article are clearly acting in good faith and making attempts to learn policy. They don't deserve the hostility some are showing them. 50m race walk (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google search is not enough to show that any subject is notable. Specific independent reliable sources with significant coverage are needed for that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is mentioned in several, independent reliable sources. Even if the article was deleted four times before, we can't go on reverse WP:CRYSTALBALL-ing by saying it can't ever by notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions in independent reliable sources are not the same as significant coverage, which is the standard for notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the references in the article and the available references indicates notability. Having "been deleted before" is not a valid reason behind nomination, leave-alone deletion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that having been deleted before is not a reason for deletion now, but we still need significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the last AfD was in November 2015. Since then, the subject has received far more significant coverage from WP:VGRS. SST flyer 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment We're talking about a major content creator on Youtube with over 2.5 million subscribers on his personal channel who also contributes to several other channels. The question of notability is easy to answer: If articles about content creators with a tenth of his subscriber base are allowed to stay up, then so should his. At this point, if the people who are proposing this deletion are acting in good faith, they should start by proposing the deletion of the Anita Sarkeesian article, as an example. Akesgeroth (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Akesgeroth, that's not how Wikipedia works. First, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not what we're discussing. We're talking about JonTron, not about other articles. Second, WP:ITSPOPULAR is not an argument. An impressive number of followers/purchases/page views/downloads/retweets does not automatically mean it is notable. Third, the combination "if article X has less subscribers than JonTron and it is not deleted, then this should stay too" is a combination of the two. And for what it's worth, I agree that the article should be kept, but on actual Wikipedia guidelines. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It should be kept but not based on subscriber count. That would probably correlate with notability via coverage in RS's but by itself is not a factor. 50m race walk (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second everthing Soetermans says, apart from the first half of the last sentence, and would point out that our article on Anita Sarkeesian gives an example of the kind of sources on which Wikipedia notability is based - in-depth coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. Your choice of that example is distasteful, to say the least, and says much more about the amount of good faith that you bring to this discussion than anyone else. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true. Considering the online harassment of Sarkeesian, it's a rather odd example of the hundreds of other examples you could've brought up... soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By supporting the keeping of this article based on a combination of unreliable sources and a few reliable sources that don't give the subject more than a sentence you are supporting the clearly clearly misogynistic agenda of Akesgeroth and other editors who are piling in here from Reddit. I hope you can sleep soundly tonight. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep largely per Salvidrim! and the lack of policy reasons in the nom. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 :*I second everthing Soetermans says, apart from the first half of the last sentence, and would point out that our article on [[Anita Sarkeesian]] gives an example of the kind of sources on which Wikipedia notability is based - in-depth coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. Your choice of that example is distasteful, to say the least, and says much more about the amount of good faith that you bring to this discussion than anyone else. [[Special:Contributions/86.17.222.157|86.17.222.157]] ([[User talk:86.17.222.157|talk]]) 17:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 :::Yes, that's true. Considering the online harassment of Sarkeesian, it's a rather odd example of the hundreds of other examples you could've brought up... [[User:Soetermans|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">soetermans</span>]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|<sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">'''TALK'''</span></sup>]] 17:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
+::::By supporting the keeping of this article based on a combination of unreliable sources and a few reliable sources that don't give the subject more than a sentence you are supporting the clearly clearly misogynistic agenda of Akesgeroth and other editors who are piling in here from Reddit. I hope you can sleep soundly tonight. [[Special:Contributions/86.17.222.157|86.17.222.157]] ([[User talk:86.17.222.157|talk]]) 20:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' largely per Salvidrim! and the lack of policy reasons in the nom. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 19:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)