Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jynxzi

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jynxzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Subject is a You Tuber for gaming and fails GNG where by subject does not have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources where by the source talk about the subject in length and in depth for verification. Cassiopeia talk 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the Kotaku, Dot Esports and IGN Brazil sources. They each contain adequate significant coverage about his web content and aspects of his life, proving he meets WP:WEB, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Also per WP:BASIC's "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" guideline, the BBC, VentureBeat and PCGamesN sources can also work for extra verifiability. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Kotaku is fine, it's a RS, but it's not long. Otherwise there's coverage in Game Rant, but nothing extensive. The BBC coverage mentioned a comment above this is a trivial mention. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG, with WP:THREE already presented above by PantheonRadiance. Skyshiftertalk 03:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not think the sources go into enough depth to fulfill notability criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources doesn't look fine for GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources above don't quite meet the threshold to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Dot Esports and IGN Brazil sources are entirely about the streamer, so there's at least 2 very clear SIGCOV sources. Skyshiftertalk 14:19, 17 December 2023 (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.