Talk:List of YouTubers/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Is that sufficient for this list? If not please explain CNN seems good enough to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI its also one the front page as of this edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Julian Smith

He is headlining Playlist Live in 2011, an event including livelavalive, MysteryGuitarMan (who are both featured on this list), He Is We, and Nickasaur!. He also made an appearance on The Tyra Banks Show, as well as being granted special access to the headquarters of Facebook to make a video, both as a result of his "25 Things I Hate About Facebook" video. --KЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 00:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide a source from a third party asserting this persons notability. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jonnybgoode44, 30 December 2010

John Soares should be on this list. He did the award-winning Sockbaby series, and also does the Battle Jitni and Go Sukashi! series and the Vacuum Consortium shorts, and has collaborated with both Brooke Brodack and Doctor Steel. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

He is certainly notable but did he rose to prominence because of YouTube or did he just publish there like others did after he was already notable? Only if they became notable because of YouTube they should be included in this list. I could not find any sources that say so. Regards SoWhy 23:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems you're right; I did some further research and determined that Sockbaby became popular long before it was posted on YouTube (probably before YouTube was even a popular site).--Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Disappeared celebrity

Hello, youtubes!

I know it is a little off top. But, only you guys, who work with this article, can possibly help me. I think last year I found a link on a cool musician's Youtube channel in this article(Youtube personalities). But after a while I couldn't find it any more, and I cannot remember his name. He played fabulous improvisations on the electric piano, being totally self-taught. He had several millions views, looked kind of unusual (rare face type), wore a black hat like Zorro, had rather fine voice with not very clear pronunciation. Without a hat he looked bold, because of light hair. He spoke English and every his video he started crying "Hi youtubes" into the camera. He is probably famous, because he already sells his CD's and his site seems to be professional. I understand you may consider me a troll, but, seriously, I don't know where to go ;-( Search engines cannot search by these parameters, I only can hope that one of you saw this guy and remembers his name. Thanks from Russia,

Ivan -- (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(email removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all, please do not add your email address to Wikipedia. I removed it for your own protection. Then, for your problem: We cannot help you with such inquiries and this page is for discussions on the article itself only. But if you want to find an entry that has been removed from the list, you can use the page's history to see previous versions of this page by date. Tools like Wikiblame can help you with searching the page's history for certain keywords to find which versions contain them and which don't. Good luck! Regards SoWhy 23:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know I cannot leave email address here. This is special email for Wikipedia, by searching it in the Internet I can find my contributions to Wikipedia, so far nobody sold it to spammers, but anyway thank you.
I have been searching history a lot, but it seems to be impossible, as I don't remember the exact day I've got that link, and every day a considerable number of modifications take place. Thank you for that wikiblame tool, I'm going to try it, but again, I haven't got many key words and I barely remember the period to check.. If somebody remembers his name, it won't be against the rules to reply in this thread, right? I'm going to check it here time to time.
Best, Ivan

-- (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


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

"Other stuff exists!" is not a good argument, because we evaluate every subject individually. As for the example you cite, the sources exist in Joe Penna, the article about this subject. Please refrain from making personal attacks. We do not have a bias, we just have guidelines and Mr Johnson, despite his high number of viewers, fails them. Please read what constitutes a reliable source and how notability is defined on Wikipedia and then try again, preferably without writing all caps and insulting people. Regards SoWhy 22:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
SoWhy Then change your "guidelines", and make new ones. Or make some new rule and call it "Ray William Johnson" rule or something. Why all this rules and guidelines exist on wikipedia? So that article would be objective and had neutral point of view right? Well, this proves that you need a new rule, cuz this article is not objective and neutral. Anyone who reads this and is not familiar with YouTube would be very much miss guided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
If you are unsatisfied with our notability guidelines, you are of course free to initiate a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia operates on a principle of consensus and our current guidelines are a result of very long discussions that the community had over the last ten years, so it will be pretty hard to convince them that all previous guidelines were incorrect, especially if your only argument is "the current guidelines do not allow the result I want". Regards SoWhy 17:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


I'd like to propose that Craig Benzine, a.k.a Wheezywaiter, be added to this list. I'm not to sure, however, whether these are sufficient sources:,50318/

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

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

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

DO NOT add Ray William Johnson!!

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

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

But in all seriousness, moderators, do you realise you are damaging wikipedia credibility with this attitude of yours? What link, what news, what are you talking about? Man has 3 000 000 subscribers, END OF STORY! Are you kidding me? You need some link from some newspaper? People come on wikipedia to read articles from objective point of view, and this article is objective? RWJ is not YouTube celebrity? He is THE YouTube celebrity for crying out loud. You are just making yourself look ridiculous, and people will start to doubt in wikipidia in general, cuz if you are doing this kinds of stuff on this page, god knows what else are you doing and not allowing or forcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead of complaining that Wikipedia does not allow your favorite artist to be included, you could try to find reliable sources that back up your claims. If you can find them, we will add him to the list. If you cannot, nothing will change. I can assure you though that constantly complaining here about this will not help your cause. Regards SoWhy 17:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You see, I don't believe that you just typed what you typed. I still believe no one responded to my post. I need link to reliable source that prooves you responded to my post. I mean that's what we're talking about. Why on EARTH do you need some news artical about RWJ? JUST GO ON YOUTUBE!!! THAT'S THE RELIABLE SOURCE! Youtube celebreties are people who are famous on YOUTUBE! I mean it's that simple, and you are embaresmenet for wikipedia, and ruining it for everybody. RWJ IS THE youtube celebrity. And I repeat, you shouldn't put him on the list, cuz this is way more entertaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
You don't get it, YouTube is not reliable per Wikipedia:RS if you have a problem with the standards take it up on its discussion page. Like before you need to back up your claims. Not adding your favorite YouTube person dose not make Wikipedia or even this page less creditable, and don't complain about how other people have page you think are less notable than him other shit exists. Look for sources and post them insted of going off on rants becuase he is not on the list. Kyle1278 02:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
RWJ is not my "favorite youtube person". Its 2,8 million people favorite person apparently. We are talking about common sense. If someones video gets 5 million views EVERY TIME, and RWJ has 2 videos per week, that means millions of people are watching his videos. I mean, what's the definition of a celebrity? It's a person who is known by lots of people, right? And I'm sorry, but it's really dumb kind of when you say "look for sources". That would make sense if youtube didn't have statistics how many views some video has, or how many subscribers some youtube profile has. Since youtube does have those statistics, it's really kind of ridiculous to say "you need reliable source". It would be like saying "I don't believe American Idol is the most popular tv show in US. I don't care what Nielsen ratings says. I need reliable news article who reports about it, and then I believe it". It is just BEYOND REDICILOUS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
O yeah, I almost forgot. You posted a link to Wikipedia:RS . I don't believe in this rules. I need a reliable source to a news artical who reports about it, and then I believe these are the rules of wikipedia. Thank you very much.
You misunderstand. We do believe that these numbers. It's just that a lot of viewers itself does not mean someone is notable per se and our guidelines and policies require that notability is verifiable with a reliable source. Those are the rules here, you can either respect them and try to work within them to achieve change or you can rant about it and fail to achieve what you want. The choice is, of course, yours. Regards SoWhy 13:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
You don't think a lot of views means someone is notable? I wonder what you'll say next. "Just because Avatar made 2,8 billion dollars, does not make it a popular movie. We need reliable source that proves it's a popular movie". I mean Jesus Christ OF COURSE it means. And I get "those are the rules", I'm just saying it's a dumb rule, and it's ridiculous no one is saying "Man RWJ has 2,8 million subscribers, every videos of his is getting 5 million views, and he is not on the list because of these "rules". I guess we need to change them immediately!" (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep running your mouth ranting and not being civil and you will eventually be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Like it's been stated, that if you don't like the rules of Wikipedia, then change them instead of complaining about them. You don' want to look for a reliable source because you can't find one. Until one is found, then he will not be added. I don't know how much clearer we can make this. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to quote the fifth pillar of wikipedias policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I believe that fits this topic absolutely perfectly. You and a few 'admins' who seems to have a fear of deviating from this completely subjective and biased 'notability' policy are doing everything you can to keep anyone who doesn't have a mention in a popular news paper out of it. The article is called 'Youtube personalities'. I'm reasonably sure that by nature of the article it circumvents the traditional notability guidelines. Other than your weak position that Ray William Johnson has simply not had an article written about him is grounds to keep him out of a list is just despicable. This is a community site. "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." You few admins who are blocking what the people want are simply following an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy, without considering the numerous reasons to include basically the most popular man on youtube in *a list about youtube personalities*. The community says they want him included in the list; and we're trying to, as told by the 5th pillar, to ignore the bureaucratic rules you're imposing on us, but you're making it quite difficult.
Hey, while you're at it letting us include Ray William Johnson, you should probably go delete the entry for Kip Kay, as the reference provided leads to a dead page with nothing of value on it. Keep up the consistency, and definitely keep enforcing your overly strict interpretation of the rules! It's definitely making people happy and leading to a better encyclopedia experience for all! Rjc34 (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Disagreeing with a rule is fine. Saying it's biased just because it does not support your argument is not. If you quote the five pillars, please remember that "Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree" is also one of those pillars. As you cite community consensus, you will want to note that one of the concerns of keeping this very article at the last AFD discussion was the lack of notability standards and a number of people explicitly expressed that entries on the list should meet our notability criteria. While the discussion was not explicitly about Mr. Johnson, this consensus still affects his (non)inclusion on the list. Since you were citing WP:IAR, you might also want to read WP:IAR?. Ignoring the rules requires you to explain why the rules do not apply to this case, although they were created with this case in mind. Again, we do not doubt, that Mr. Johnson has a lot of viewers. We just need reliable sources to verify it. As Wikipedia:Verifiability says: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Personally, I'd be happy if some sources could be found to end this recurring discussion once and for all, so you are more than welcome to provide them. Regards SoWhy 08:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your polite response. Sorry if I muddled the rules a bit in my argument, but I think a lot of people feel that your guys are going a bit to far on this issue. The issue I have with your criteria of a news article or something is this: Mr. Johnson makes videos that cover various trending videos that are discovered through viewer submissions etc. By definition of what he does no news company will ever cover him. By almost everyones standards every one of his uploads 'goes viral' reaching the #1 most viewed for the day uploaded and usually a day or two after. But, his videos are a series, a very popular one, not something breakthrough and new, which is why no news companies would have a reason to report him. I'm curious why for one we can't use YouTube's own numbers to verify claims, and for two how people who become 'youtube famous' from a single popular video could be considered 'youtube personalities'. Rjc34 (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Because YouTube's numbers would be a primary source and we need secondary sources that are independent of the subject they cover. YouTube is not Mr. Johnson but if we write about something related to YouTube, YouTube itself cannot be a source. That would be circular reasoning. I think if he really had this impact, there should be significant coverage about him as well, no matter what he does. Some newspapers cover anything that is of potential interest to their readers so I'm quite sure that coverage must exist somewhere. Unfortunately, no one has been able to find any yet, so that's why we have not included him yet. If you have access to newspaper archives or similar that are pay-per-view, you might want to try and find some. Regards SoWhy 13:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Popularity doesn't equate notability. It's like being popular in high school. Just because you were popular in high school doesn't mean you will be notable. Notability and popularity are two different things. Ted Williams ended on a lot of different shows after one video while some people talk years of hard work doing what they do to get on shows. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 13:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
What? What kind of a comparison is that? "Just because you were popular in high school doesn't mean you will be notable" WHAT? If you are popular in high school, YOU ARE NOTABLE IN HIGH SCHOOL! That's the comparison! This is not artical "youtubers who will be notable in 20 years" We are talking about present time! If someone is popular on youtube, then he is notable youtube personality! End of story! (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Popularity doesn't equate notability. If being popular was all it took to notable, then every popular person in high school would be notable and notable for what? That's like Paris Hilton being famous for doing nothing. Just popularity on its own is not a good enough reason to include someone on the list. There are tons of popular YouTubers, but they are not on this list because sources for them are hard to find. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Michelle Phan

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

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

Did You read all the topics?RWJ

If you look at the list there is alot of people on the list that the average youtuber could not name but the one who is 2 most subscribed cannot even get on the list Here is a list of his youtube awards #2 - Most Subscribed (All Time) (more) (less) as of 2/13/11 8:05 Moutain time Number 2 Subscribed of all time San Francisco chronical — Preceding unsigned comment added by XIkennethIx (talkcontribs) 03:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The same typical "video of the week" article means nothing. It doesn't prove notability. Find an article in from a reliable source proving his notability then he will be added. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry Sir, what did you say? If someone gets 5 million views for every posted video, that does not mean he is notable? FIVE MILLION VIEWS FOR EVERY VIDEO. I mean Jesus Christ... why don't you also say "Just because Toy Story 3 made a billion dollars, doesn't make it a popular movie. I need an article to prove it!" OMG! You are absolutely ruining wikipedia for everybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
So upholding Wikipedia rules is ruining Wikipedia? These rules have been set over a lot of discussions over the past ten years. If you don't agree with the rules, then start a discussion to get them changed. That's the worst analogy EVER for not getting your way ever! Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Fifth pillar of wikipedias policy says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". It's pretty obvious to everyone that RWJ should be on this list, and I can bet if you people put him on the list, NO ONE will ever try to dispute that decision. You won't have anyone on discussion page saying "Man RWJ really shound't be on this list, he is nobody!". You are just following an overly strict interpretation of some rule. If everybody would be that strict in real world, 80% of people would be in jail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Now would be the time for consensus, yes? That is the recommendation under adherence for finding the expected exceptions for the rules. (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

People like Lucas Cruikshank, Ryan Higa, Chris Crocker, and others have transcended outside of YouTube and the Internet. Lucas Cruikshank has made guest appearances as himself, Fred, or in other roles in "Hannah Montana," "iCarly," a movies based on Fred, etc.. Ryan Higa has put out a movie which got limited theater released entitled "Ryan and Sean's Not So Excellent Adventure." Chris Crocker's "Leave Britney Alone" video was featured in a movie. That's why we need a suitable reference for him. It's not just the Internet outside of YouTube that he needs to notable. Some notable YouTubers transcend the Internet. It's just that they use YouTube as a way to make money. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Then because of what you have just stated I propose the title of this article be changed to: "List of Selected YouTube Personalities who have Transcended YouTube". Seems to fit your extremely narrow views of what should belong on the article better. Rjc34 (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't "List of Selected YouTube Personalities by Opinionated Wikipedia Editors" better suit the title? I can support that with a multitude of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underwoodl06 (talkcontribs) 08:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Dave Days

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

{{edit semi-protected}} |- | Dave Days | davedays | Singer, songwriter and vlogger. Rose to popularity for his playlist "Adventures to Miley Cyrus' Heart" which ended with a video featuring Miley Cyrus. He is taking part in the 2011 Digitour. | [1] [2] |-

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

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

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


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

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

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

From the second article (from CTV News):

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's to dispute? It's not like you posted cited any references that show his notability. The first reference is about Lucas Cruikshank who created "Fred." Not exactly Ray William Johnson now is it? The second reference is not about Johnson, but about Canadian YouTubers. Sure they may mention him, but overall the article doesn't show his notability. The third reference talks about how many subscribers he has. Views are not enough to establish notability. The fourth and final reference is not much of an article. It just says that Johnson made an episode of =3 which showcased a reporter getting attacked by a reindeer and proceeded to make jokes about it. How does that show his notability? It doesn't. So in effect, you picked poor references. Find references that show his NOTABILITY and he will be added. So comeback with a request when you have that. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to accept #3 as a reliable source about his notability since it also talks about the way his show works (I read the original article in German). I also found this source that talks about him almost exclusively but I'm not sure whether the source fits WP:RS. Regards SoWhy 08:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
So if this is accepted by you, why isn't he on the list? You yourself have read and accepted it as a reliable source. That means he has the right to be added to the list. What is the hold up? It is accepted and reliable just as you said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underwoodl06 (talkcontribs) 04:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The third one just talks about views. Remember we don't go on views alone. You of all people should know that, SoWhy. That source you provided talks about his show =3 and sounds more like an column or editorial than an article. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. But the source does also mention how at least parts of his show works. Regards SoWhy 15:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
So if the 4th Reference isn't good enough for reference since they mentioned his video, then why should Amanda Baggs be notable since her video was only mentioned once on CNN? There is no notability for being mentioned once. Or how about Ted Williams since he obviously does NOT have a Youtube subcription at all and he has one notable video? There is no notability for his video being mentioned. So how does your 'argument' make sense? It is more or less a petty excuse to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underwoodl06 (talkcontribs) 02:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I found a good article to add Ted Williams. Now if you bothered to look at the article that is referenced, then you would see they talk about them how they are notable. Don't get mad because you are not getting your way. Just find a suitable reference that talks about him and how he is notable. I get that there will be some mentions of his show. But talking just about his show is not suitable as it doesn't talk about how he is notable. All I want is a reference that conforms to the standards set in place. Once that happens, then we can put this to rest once and for all. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ted Williams but not RWJ?

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

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

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

OK, here's some:

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

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

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

Here are other sources which I am most undoubtedly sure you will turn down because they "don't fit the standards set up by WP". http://g a r e n

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

For someone of his has a lot of subscribers (as you often like to point out), he should be able to transcend the Internet. Any blog or Wiki links are not going to be used because they are not the best types of sites for sources. I don't think you saw this on the first link, "This entry has been rejected due to incompleteness or lack of notability." Plus that link sounds more like profile, then an actual article. The second link is about a new channel he has created. The sixth link also is a profile rather then an article. The tenth link is a blog. The All Voices link is not that good. It's a poorly written piece with the same stuff majority of the links say. Why would I use that one and not one of the others? Doesn't make much sense. The Arlington Cardinal article is not that good either. It just has a few lines and a posted video. What are we supposed to reference with that? The Matt's Mark link is a blog and even if it wasn't, we couldn't use it because it's about a song he sang. Can't really use that. So automatically, the Matt's Market link cancels out the link.
What I want is an in depth article about him. Some elements can include his background and how he got into making videos, how he has transcended YouTube and the Internet as a whole, how his success on YouTube has led to other possible opportunities outside of the Internet, etc.. I don't want an article telling use that he is a YouTuber. Telling us that is redundant as we know he is a YouTuber or people wouldn't try so hard to get him on this list. We don't need stats like how many subscribers he has on YouTube, how many views he has, how many fans on Facebook, how many followers on Twitter, etc.. Stats don't always equate notability. Now if you can find a good article which has some of the stuff I've mentioned, then he will be added. Until such time, the links will continually be rejected. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!
So other people can be put on the list for their 'notable' covers of a song but actually mentioning hit songs and bands that RWJ has been a part of isn't notable at all? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And your mentioning of Wiki sites not being sufficient enough doesn't do justice for this Wiki site at all. The 2nd link is about a band he is in which he has a channel for and oviously the band is note worthy to have one of their songs mentioned, that is notable. So really what are you going on? He can sing and has great talent to the point they have reviews of hit songs and the band, not to mention songs on iTunes, but it isn't as notable as some other person who covers a song and gets a review, Yeah, that is notable. These are good sources but i sounds like you are picky to pick one that satifies your needs. It is either not reliable, too short, not detailed enough. I guarentee that I can find articles on the list that match or have much less the subject matter and detail as some of these articles I and so many others have provided. I think he is notable for being in two bands that have hit songs that others have reviewed and talked about, not to mention their band's websites. But to you the band's official website wouldn't be a reliable source.. Excuses excuses..
You are still complaining rather then looking for what would be suitable. You don't seem to understand that we need reliable secondary sources. Not a band's website, YouTube, Myspace, Facebook, etc.. Sure we can use those for something, but not as a main source. iTunes is irrelevant as this article is based on YouTube. For someone who thinks every source is good, you try to make a cop out and try to bring irrelevant stuff into it. Why do I need to keep repeating the same thing over and over? It's getting redundant. Knowing you, you will try to pass off some poorly written article, blog, Wiki type article as a good. I've looked for a good in depth article on him and nothing is found. That leads me to see that he isn't notable enough to get a proper in depth article written on him. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe Ray William Johnson should be added to the list as he's considered notable enough. And if this might help, I found this article from a notable source if this helps his inclusion to the list: [1] --Victory93 (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
That link is a blog. Even if it wasn't, we can't use as it's not based soley on Ray William Johnson plus the blurb about him is too small. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

We are requiring a NEWS article not a blog or a Wikipediaesque site. Anybody can have a mention on blog or Wikipediaesque site. I don't get why you can't comprehend that a news article is what is wanted and not just some site with poorly written content. If you write a blog, then would know that most blogs are not NPOV. A lot of people write based on what they want and their view. What I'm asking you is not blogs or Wikipeidaesque site. Provide a good news source is all that is asked. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you serious? I just gave you a Long list of completely legitimate articles that closely resemble and some that match other articles used as references in the list! The short blurb about shane dawson is exactly like the one from the first link. The TopTenz reference is perfectly legitimate because it is not a blog or wikipediaesque site. You are being extremely one sided and difficult. You just have personal opinions on the guy about not being added. You will never be satisfied when it comes to this guy being added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Seriously, in just the first 11 links, I found three that are in no way legitimate under your guidelines: -- Reject for not being completely about the subject. -- Reject for being a no name blog. -- Reject for being a no name blog.

Shall I go on? PokeHomsar (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC) -- No name blog. -- No name blog. -- No name blog. -- No name blog. -- Never heard of this. -- A college newspaper, really? -- A link to his YouTube page. -- How is this a legitimate link? -- Not completely about subject. -- How is this most viewed chart legitimate? -- Is this legitimate? -- Not legitimate. -- Link doesn't work. -- Link to a damn YouTube playlist. -- A notable blog but still a blog. -- A damn YouTube video. -- A website with damn "download this ringtone" disruption ads. -- Not notable.

PokeHomsar (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC) -- Link to his damn DVD on Amazon. -- A link announcing the sale of his DVD. -- A video on a no name website. -- Link doesn't even work. -- No name blog.

And I've gone through it all. If all these links are legitimate, at least one of the links for RWJ is. PokeHomsar (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC) -- While this is done in collaboration with the NYT, this article was still written by a college student, making it illegitimate. Because if a college newspaper is legitimate, I will write something about RWJ for my college newspaper to get him added. PokeHomsar (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead of using WP:OTHERCRAP, find links better links and change them. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Go back and re-read what I said about that link to a college newspaper. You will see that I never said anything about it being illegitimate. It was the style of writing that cancelled out the Arbiter Online link. A column or editorial are POV style articles which means they are not neutral or NPOV. Nice try in twisting what I said into something I didn't. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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

You do realize that YouTube isn't a good source. We need reliable secondary sources. So a playlist means nothing. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
PokeHomsar, You can try all you want but we know this guy makes it his personal vendetta to keep RWJ from being put on the list. We could have an article from the NYTimes or a video from any News Network but he will make the dumbest excuse to deny the authenticity/reliability or anything else like he has numerous times with all of the great sources we have supplied. And as you can see, most of them match or outdo what has been accepted for the list. You have proven that most of the links that were accepted are blogs or unreliable columns and articles written by others to include the most random 'personalities' on the internet. You have even proven that some of the sources don't work. And the only thing he tells you is to find new links to keep those people on. They won't be deleted like he did to RWJ who for quite some time was on the list, but once this guy put his ass in the ring, he will make sure that one of the most popular and most like celebrities on the internet never makes it to the list. He is being personal about this whole list. User SoWhy has even said that one of the articles submitted above was a good source but this guy just uses the same damn excuse. We have proven with many articles he belongs on this list but I guess a guy who lives on WP and tries to dictate what goes and what doesn't is going to win because of his personal opinions. We have plenty of sources and SoWhy has agreed, but Mr. C.C is and always will be a sore and stubborn user here.

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

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

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

Not sure if these links had been submitted before, but here goes: PokeHomsar (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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


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

ONE MORE JUST BECAUSE: -you will no doubt claim that these are not good sources, however two are internationally known news broadcasters, imdb shows him as featuring in more than just =3 and the other site is just because.

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

If you are not going to be civil about this, then I suggest you move on and calm down. The fact IMDB has him on there is irrelevant as anyone can easily add and edit stuff on there. The All Voices and The Independent links don't show how HE is NOTABLE. Videos of the week articles are about the top videos on YouTube and doesn't show how Ray William Johnson is notable. The All Voices link talks about his show =3. The CNN articles talks about some items he put on iTunes. It doesn't show he is notable. It just talks about a controversy. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"The fact IMDB has him on there is irrelevant as anyone can easily add and edit stuff on there", Hmm sounds like Wikipedia to me, So then Wikipedia can NEVER be a reliable source EVER because it is the EXACT SAME THING! Give me an indepth article explaining the notability and reliability of WP or this website will be removed from the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underwoodl06 (talkcontribs) 22:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Bringing up how many subscribers he has on YouTube has been done before and mentioning over and over won't being him any closer to inclusion on this list. Find an actual good source stating why he is notable and he will be considered for inclusion. That's why people's requests usually end up dead because either don't bother finding sources when requesting, don't keep up with their request, try to go on views and subscribers alone, and or find bad sources. Freaking out like this PokeHomsar will not help your cause. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not against adding him if proper notability is established, but Fishhead2100 is completely right. These comments are not helping the case for his inclusion. Kyle1278 03:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100 Do you realise how you sound? Just read yourself and try to understand it, and I hope you get it. This would be like... lets say I'm talking to you in person, and I'm trying to convince you I'm alive, and not dead. And you say "no I don't care what you say, I don't believe you are alive, I need newspaper article to prove that you are not dead." And I say to you "but dude, I'm speaking to you! Look at me I'm waving my hands, talking to you, I am alive!!!" And you say "no no no, I need newspaper article, you are not alive". Trust me, it is THAT stupid. If you are not putting RWJ because of some wikipedia rule, then you should change or add new rule, and call it "Ray William Johnson rule". Because you are ruining wikipedia credibility with this stupid rules of yours.
Do you realize what Wikipedia would be like if there no rules? Do you really want Wikipedia to be an anarchist website that allows anything to happen? If that were the case then anybody would be able to post non-encyclopedic crap because they have no rules governing what can or cannot added to Wikipedia. That is the worst analogy EVER. Nice try though. Seriously stop instigating stuff and being uncivil because it is disruptive to the Wikipedia process. Plus, I'm not the only who said stuff about the rules. The fact you are still replying to this discussion means you haven't bothered to get the rules changed. You must not hate the rules that much if you haven't bothered to try and get them changed. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Those sources are possibly reliable. But charts are not coverage of the person (they are just statistics) and the iTunes article is mostly about what iTunes did, not what RWJ does. Regards SoWhy 16:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Those are only useful in a Ray William Johnson article. They don't show how he is notable otherwise. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have re-added RWJ after my last edit was deleted. I have extensively reviewed the notes and discussion and it is clear to me that the notability argument is not relevant in this case. If this was a debate about whether or not he should have a Page of his own then notability would be a fair debate. This, however, is a list of YouTube personalities -- surely no-one can debate that Johnson is a YouTube personality? Isn't he the second most subscribed YouTube channel? Further, I have cited references that provide clear evidence of his notoriety here and abroad. This appears to have become a battle between belligerent fans and obstreperous wikipeople -- Is this, or is this not, a list of YouTube personalities? Is Johnson a well known YouTube personality? If list were for the top 10 trees growing in Transvaal would we leave one off because it was not famous enough? This is silly.Peterchasefx (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This continual and unilateral deletion of entries about Ray William Johnson is coming close to Vandalism. At this stage, if you wish to see him deleted PROPOSE it and give people the opportunity to discuss it and add references. In most cases the "CITATION NEEDED" tag is added but here it is just straight deletion by two self-important editors. It appears that I have waded into a battle between some of RWJ's fans -- not the top of the intellectual food chain -- and a two small-minded control freaks. Stop it. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of verifiable encyclopedic information. The sources for Johnson range from the San Francisco Chronicle to the UK's INDEPENDENT (a major newspaper.) While we don't need the fifth pillar to support his addition to the list, it certainly does justify it when you consider that a GOOGLE search for "Ray William Johnson" turns up almost three million pages.
I'm sorry but that's not how it works on Wikipedia. The burden of proof that he is notable is with those who want to add him, not those who wish to have him removed. Please see the countless (archived) discussions on this subject and the last articles for deletion discussion (link above) where consensus was pretty clear that entries to the list have to meet any of the notability guidelines. Simply saying that sources exist is insufficient. If you check those discussions I mentioned, you will notice that the same sources you provided have been rejected because they do not "cover the subject in depth". Simply re-reporting YouTube statistics of most-watched videos does not make the report coverage of the subject. If you say there are so many sources, shouldn't there be any that provide "significant coverage" of the subject? On a side note, calling anyone involved in this discussion, no matter how heated it is, "biased" is not helpful (no personal attacks are). Also, please remember to sign your posts. Regards SoWhy 19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)