Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Chomik

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Chomik

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

Last AfD closed as no consensus. Since then it only becomes clear this subject has no dependable WP:SIGCOV didn't meet basic WP:GNG nor any points of WP:CREATIVE, and this bio has no encyclopedic value at its present state. Searches returned barely his mention by fan sites or his own sources. — Ammarpad (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note here is the last AfD it didn't automatically appear since it was renamed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thecomputernerd01

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep; at one point, Chomik was one of the largest creators on the platform and is a rich part of the site's history. Even I, one who isn't too familiar with the YouTube community, am familiar. I clicked a random debate amongst the articles for deletion and this is the one that appeared. Chomik also meets the notability standards, policies, and criteria of Wikipedia. Why deny Wikipedia of potential information and knowledge? What's the harm in keeping this article around? Why does Onision deserve an article? Why does Lisa Schwartz deserve an article? What have these two done that Josh Chomik has not? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you did not mention the policies and guidelines that you think this article met to merit keeping. Can you specifically mention and explain why? You comment is entirely Keep, because I like it and Keep, because Onision and Lisa have articles so this one must have even though he didn't met the criterion. — Ammarpad (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary I never once specified that I liked the subject or article. That would be incorrect reasoning and the link does not apply to me. Also, I figured I'd mention other YouTubers. I was wondering if you could specify why these subjects have articles, and why Chomik does not meet the criteria. I'd like to know what Onision and Schwartz — and the many other stub YouTubers whom I could have examplified — meet the crtieria. What do they have that Chomik doesn't? Because to me it seems like they should be nominated for deletion as well if Chomik is going to be. They're practically one in the same. Once it is specified what Chomik doesn't have compared to them that qualified for an article, perhaps deletion could be considered. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still did not cite any guideline or policy that support keeping this article but you wrote strong keep and now say "Keep WP:ILIKEIT" is incorrect on you. Well, I can't force it on you but I left people to judge. Second: you now show clearly my only offence is not nominating Onision and Lisa Schwartz for deletion. Well, I've not even open these articles to see what they contain, and I am under no obligation to do so, If you feel they should be deleted you're free to nominate them. But this one is what I think should be deleted, because I read it and I've already given reason above. And I may advise you to read this very helpul advice on points to advance or not in deletion discussions — Ammarpad (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete A local human intest story, or passing mention in an article about parodies posted on YouTube are not the stuff of reliable source coverage. Humorous articles about humorous parodies do not make their multiple subjects all notable, no matter how notable the publication they appear in is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:ENT, and significant RS coverage not found. What's in the article is mostly trivia. Just a nn Youtuber. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient sources available to meet WP:ENT. Does not otherwise meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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