Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerd3

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. Sandstein 09:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Similar article at Draft: Daniel Hardcastle on the same subject recently rejected. Pages Dan Hardcastle and Daniel Hardcastle previously deleted due to lack of notability, the latter being indefinitely protected. There’s just not enough content to justify an article. Koldcuts (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rather large body of evidence for a content creator, who has in excess of 2.6 million YouTube subcribers on his primary channel alone, a published book and a number of other works that have been outlined in this source.

Surely there must be precedents set by the likes of Jacksepticeye that such figures are of public interest.

Any pointers on how this can be supported with additional content to demonstrate its relevance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPaperwings (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me if anything I’d be biased towards keeping the article as I’m a fan of Dan. However the largest problem for him continues to be third-party reporting. There’s just not enough of it (though maybe that’ll change when his book comes out, as it hasn’t been published yet). In a case like Jacksepticeye, as you can see by searching Google news for his name you get numerous reports from sources like Polygon, Independent, BBC about his recent split. Searching for Dan doesn’t have nearly as much coverage, with only passing mentions in good sources and only a few less-decent sources with full articles about him. The problem now is the same it was 3 years ago; despite his following he just doesn’t have enough external coverage. Koldcuts (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hardcastle and multiple recreations under other titles. @MrPaperwings: "Surely there must be precedents set by the likes of Jacksepticeye that such figures are of public interest." Look at the history of George Miller (entertainer), a more popular YouTuber which was deleted and salted until he charted on Billboard. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2018 (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.