Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeorgeNotFound

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgeNotFound

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Youtube who is mentioned in various articles about the Minecraft community, but I'm not see sufficient depth-of-coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO criteria. The TechTimes article used as a reference in the article is more about him being banned for an unusual reason (harassing himself via an alt account) than anything else. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, the article in question was previously a redirect and was being discussed here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_15#GeorgeNotFound.JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 15:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is a stub, with very few information, and it is not marked as one. From Burgundian Feudalism (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Burgundian Feudalism:, stub classifications do not matter in AfD debates, as we only care about notability. Similarily, an article may have a million cleanup tags, but if it is notable (meets WP:GNG), then it is kept. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 15:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there are barely any information in this article. Compare that to an article on Dream. From Burgundian Feudalism (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Burgundian Feudalism No one prevents you from tagging it as a stub while the article being discussed here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After taking a good look at the sources, there isn't much if any significant, reliable, independent coverage of this particular person. Also of note is the recreation of this article 7 times (3 CSD'ed, 4 via usurp the redirect). Serious salt should be applied. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 18:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Search results talk more about his proclivity to getting banned than about him and those that are about him are not WP:RS. –Fredddie ™ 18:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is mostly just fancruft and WP:BLP violations (personal life only containing something about color blindness). This article also appears to have been recreated many times, so I'm going to recommend WP:SALT as well. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 18:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having searched, I haven't found significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so I believe that the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (seems to be a bit WP:TOOSOON), but don't WP:SALT. Instead convert back into a REDIRECT to Dream (YouTuber)#Career as a "related topic", redirecting to an article on a YouTuber whom this individual's notability stems from. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There has been no significant coverage of this person, unlike Dream (YouTuber), I think that the redirect should be deleted to avoid allowing the recreation of the article to bypass AfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- While I am personally against keeping the redirect, you could only do it by having it have Extended Confirmed protection, and then have this article incubate in draft space (so it gets submitted to AfC). JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 12:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above, nowhere near enough high quality sourcing to write a BLP, repeatedly recreated and deleted. Any attempt at writing an article should go through AFC. I oppose redirecting to Dream (YouTuber), as the entire coverage of GeorgeNotFound there consists of In a video from January 2020, Dream and another YouTuber, GeorgeNotFound, connected an Arduino board to an electric dog collar which emitted an electric shock whenever a player lost health in the game Minecraft, which is nowhere near enough content IMO to justify redirecting to another youtuber. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Perhaps a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. A redirect won't do since this is not a case of WP:INHERIT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. No reliable sources. I believe this shouldn't revert back to a redirect. Although Dream makes content with George, this shouldn't be redirected to Dream. Edl-irishboy (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2021 (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.