Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray William Johnson (2nd nomination)

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray William Johnson

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

First Note, this article was previously requested possibly more than four times under speedy deletion (WP:CSD A7). Several undoing edits of the tagging for speedy deletion were probably done by bias fans. Second Note, I do not believe there is a need for such pages of YouTube personalities, except for List of YouTube personalities. This man may be the "most subscribed" on YouTube, but YouTube is just a video sharing website. No indication of importance is shown. Also, the man's YouTube page reads, "I'm just a regular guy with an entertaining hobby." Plus, the article is referenced and true, but there probably is no need of such an article. I'm not bias, I'm stating facts. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 00:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the man is quite important, but that is only on YouTube. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 00:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination gives no valid reason for deletion, there is no reference to any reason based in a policy or guideline that could justify deletion. The prior deletions are irrelevant - speedy deletion is about an assertion of importance, which is easily passed now, and the previous AfDs were done in the absence of the reliable sources that we know now have covered him in detail. Notability on Wikipedia is not about "importance" - I don't think he is particularly important, but our opinions matter little in the face of the fact that he meets our general notability criterion. If one does consider "importance" to be relevant, then I can point out that the Guinness World Records team obviously think he deserves a mention for being the most subscribed channel on Youtube.[1] I'd advise withdrawing this nomination now to avoid wasting more editors' time and averting drama. Fences&Windows 07:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the arguments of the nominator, the subject still fulfills WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. I agree that the current sources are not exactly ideal:

This Forbes article is exclusively about Johnson, and is essentially a bio of how he began his career. This is certainly in-depth coverage from a reputable news blog. This is likely the best current source, IMO.
This student media article provides some content, but the source itself is not high on the reliability scale, as it is student-run.
There are a number of articles focused on particular viral videos by the subject: [2], [3] [4]
There are several brief descriptions or mentions of Johnson across several articles, usually noting his status as most-subscribed or having a high subscriber count on YouTube: [5] [6] [7]
There are several links to specific videos to note the fact that celebrities have appeared on his show.

However, looking around for other sources substantiating the notability of the subject did prove fruitful:

This article from Myona News discussing the income made by Johnson (and another YouTuber), noting that Johnson is a "successful YouTube celebrity."
This article from The Australian about Johnson as popular young comedian and his show, Equals Three.
This French article from L'Express magazine about Johnson's work with viral videos and his success.

I realize there is a reluctance to have innumerable WP pages on famous YouTubers, but in this particular case, there seems to be sufficient evidence that the subject is notable based on in-depth coverage in independent sources. The subject seems to be well-known for his performing style, his subscriber count and status on YouTube, and the fact that he is known for showing viral videos is all very apparent from the coverage in the above sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears notable based on references. Everyking (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable as source above show. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jethrobot, as it seems to meet WP:GNG. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NackFinch, the article appears to be citing all information and all sources. I see no valid violations , so I choose to let the article be. User:NackFinch 18:50 , 29 November 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, notability and noteworthiness appears to be covered here based upon secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep: I was the original author of the completely revamped version of this article in March 2011.[8]. The subject is clearly notable and this AfD nomination is an abomination. The nominator here should be deleted and banned from Wikipedia forever for such foolhardy nominations.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Ban me for foolhardy nominations? Some of my nominations were helpful to delete some unnecessary articles! I've made excellent contributions to Wikipedia! If you don't like my thoughts of editing Wikipedia, that's just your opinion. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 02:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Milowent's suggestions are somewhat extreme, but you would be better off withdrawing your deletion nomination given the unanimous agreement to keep the article given the evidence supporting notability of the subject. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing Nomination as per discussion --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 02:35, 2 December 2011 (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.