Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JiDion

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 keep. Star Mississippi 19:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JiDion

[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)

Fails WP:NBIO, not notable. Hasn't won any major awards, all he's known for is harassment and haircuts. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I find are sites about as reliable as TMZ saying he's been banned from Twitch. I really don't want to know more about it, it's gossipy nonsense at this point. Well below what we require for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He has a Complex piece written about him and is being described as a "YouTube star" in reliable sources such as the New York Post. I will give you that some sources might not be as reliable, but he has enough coverage in sources that are. Célestin Denis (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBIO clearly states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." No matter the reason he's notable, he has enough coverage in reliable sources. Célestin Denis (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG [1] [2] [3] There exists a very large amount of significant coverage of the subject, a quick google search reveals a large number of sources covering him. W 42 13:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure he can pass WP:GNG but do you think he passes WP:NBIO? Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBIO isn't relevant if the subject passes WP:GNG. "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." - from WP:NBIO. W 42 12:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete over WP:BLP concerns. Not a fan of having an article on someone of marginal notability that's entirely about their controversies. ~~If there were coverage going deeper into other aspects of his life, I'd reconsider.~~ Ovinus (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage going deeper into other aspects of his life. [4] Célestin Denis (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that's actually good source. I guess it depends on how the article is balanced. It's just bad optics to have BLPs that are predominantly about controversies. Struck for now, and I'll think about it. Ovinus (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. The nature of his work (i.e. pranks) means that unfortunately the article will be dominated by controversy, but at least in this case it's something that he actively courts. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are youtubers that are way less relevant than him that have Wikipedia pages. 150.250.82.249 (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 7 October 2022 (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.