Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Majlak

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. Missvain (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Majlak

[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:GNG - page creator has growing history of articles on non-notable people. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG... covered significantly by reliable sources. One of the most well-known YouTubers and this can be seen by his coverage by many secondary sources. In List of YouTubers, most of the listed YouTubers are much less notable and have much less coverage than Mike Majlak. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Give me a break! Covered "significantly" by "reliable" sources??? Yet another attempt by this editor to create a bio that fails WP:BIO. Sundayclose (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it fail WP:BIO? Ajshul 😀 (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because a few citations to a few sources with dubious notability do not meet the criteria for either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I don't need to list all the criteria here. And please don't try to argue that YouTube views or subscribers or Google hits qualifies for notability as you have done with other articles you created, unless you can link a policy or guideline to verify that. Sundayclose (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - To clarify, I wasn't saying YouTube subs or views added to notability, just that it could act as an indicator that the YouTuber might be notable for other reasons. I also wasn't trying to say that Google hits mattered at all (in the other discussion that I believe you are mentioning), just that when he is searched on Google, many reliable sources are among the results. I was just trying to argue why I believe it does follow WP:GNG and WP:BIO (and WP:YTN). However, I will stop participating in the discussion because I have shared my opinion clearly. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor sourcing of a YouTuber with dubious notability. —Kbabej (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Ajshul. The Social Blade links and Chartable links need to go. The rest of the sources seem to be reliable. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or userfy - besides the obviously plain lack of any reliable source, we have considered YouTubers not to be inherently notable, and although consensus can change, I am clearly in the minority. As far as a "social media influencer", he has a claim with 0.3 Wheatons. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could Be improved to meet guidelines. Kieran207 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person, reliable links from various publications. Could be made better according to the guidelines and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.45.47.144 (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC) — 39.45.47.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note the above !vote is from an SPA with one edit. —Kbabej (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A self-published book and various gameable "success" metrics do not a notability case make. The only source that pokes its head above the reliability threshold is the one from The Verge, and that's just not enough. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self published sources. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Sliekid (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage, except for in articles about Logan Paul. If the page creator claims that there are sources, maybe draftify or userfy. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 21:02, 30 November 2020 (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.