Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DavidParody

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DavidParody

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

No evidence found that this person passes WP:GNG. PROD declined by article creator. Passing mentions or mentions that focus solely on their Youtube channel, rather than the person themselves, were all that could be found during a WP:BEFORE search for sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information is mostly from his videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasparc (talk • contribs) 02:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's genuinely the case then there's nothing to support a Wikipedia article, which requires secondary sources - as i pointed out to you on your talk page. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the General notability guideline. I have found no significant coverage of this person in any reliable, independent sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kudos on the high follower count, but until he's written about in reliable secondary sources he's not notable. Pburka (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. YouTubers do not get an automatic notability freebie because click count in and of itself — the content of our article has to be verifiable to reliable source coverage about the YouTuber, and the number of subscribers they do or don't have does not confer an exemption from that requirement. Bearcat (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youTubers.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:35, 19 March 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.