Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OmarGoshTV (2nd nomination)

OmarGoshTV

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/OmarGoshTV
• Articles for deletion/OmarGoshTV (2nd nomination)

OmarGoshTV (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)

Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not ascertain notability which is also not inherited and the article is a recreation of a previously deleted article. - Pmedema (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as the sources seen to be either passing mentions in local papers or unreliable sources (YouTube). Also, @Hawkeye75: You need to provide a rationale for deletion when you nominate, as otherwise it will normally be speedily kept. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not sure why Hawkeye75 keeps nominating my articles, but Pmedema that time it was hijacked and was deleted by mistake see User talk:MrProEdits#January_2017, Adog104, Yngvadottir, Northamerica1000, Narutolovehinata5, Premeditated Chaos, Drmies, JJMC89 ping. Mjbmr (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mjbmr: that's quite a serious thing to say, in that it sounds perilously close to an accusation of stalking. Having said that, if Hawkeye75 actually added nomination rationales, their reasons would be plain. For what it's worth, K.e.coeffmann has also AfD' a chunk of your articles, successfully too. Maybe it's your chosen subject matter ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. This would be a weak keep; the article cites a few news stories but they do not add up to very extensive coverage. However, nominator provided no rationale, and I can confirm Mjbmr's statement that the first delete !vote is in part based on a misapprehension; as Mjbmr says, see User talk:MrProEdits#January 2017. The article was hijacked during the first deletion discussion, replaced with one about a non-notable YouTuber who uses the same name. After this was discovered, there was no objection stated to re-AfDing this article, but it was wrongly deleted and was therefore restored; this is not an illicit re-creation. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - If this was still an article about the "hijacked" subject, I would !vote delete due to a lack of coverage in reliable sources. As for this one, there isn't much under "OmarGoshTV"; however, searching using his real name reveals more hits. The citations given in the article seem to be of the "special interest" kind, but there does appear to be enough coverage specifically about him (as opposed to passing mentions) to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Sorry that I didn't write my side, but he fails WP:GNG and doesn't deserve an article. Hawkeye75 (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

reminder: your "Delete" !vote is assumed from the nomination and shouldn't be repeated. The usual thing is to call it "Comment" DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I've read articles about people who are barley known who only got an article because they knew the Beatles or some other celebrity. Omar is pretty popular and keeps getting more popular. I think this should stay.