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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Comment - Even if the last AFD was 'Hijacked' I still don't feel this is notable and the argument of
other stuff exists like this is not a valid argument.
@
Mjbmr: that's quite a serious thing to say, in that it sounds perilously close to an accusation of stalking. Having said that, if
Hawkeye75 actually added nomination rationales, their reasons would be plain. For what it's worth, K.e.coeffmann has also AfD' a chunk of your articles, successfully too. Maybe it's your chosen subject matter ;) —
O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis10:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. This would be a weak keep; the article cites a few news stories but they do not add up to very extensive coverage. However, nominator provided no rationale, and I can confirm
Mjbmr's statement that the first delete !vote is in part based on a misapprehension; as Mjbmr says, see
User talk:MrProEdits#January 2017. The article was hijacked during the first deletion discussion, replaced with one about a non-notable YouTuber who uses the same name. After this was discovered, there was no objection stated to re-AfDing this article, but it was wrongly deleted and was therefore restored; this is not an illicit re-creation.
Yngvadottir (
talk)
12:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - If this was still an article about the "hijacked" subject, I would !vote delete due to a lack of coverage in reliable sources. As for this one, there isn't much under "OmarGoshTV"; however, searching using his real name reveals more hits. The citations given in the article seem to be of the "special interest" kind, but there does appear to be enough coverage specifically about him (as opposed to passing mentions) to establish notability.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew12:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Change to delete per BrownHairedGirl's analysis below. Upon her closer inspection, he has indeed received coverage, but most are of questionable reliability. By the way, I forgot to mention this earlier, but I was the nominator during the article's first nomination.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew00:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
reminder: your "Delete" !vote is assumed from the nomination and shouldn't be repeated. The usual thing is to call it "Comment" DGG (
talk )
18:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I've read articles about people who are barley known who only got an article because they knew the
Beatles or some other celebrity. Omar is pretty popular and keeps getting more popular. I think this should stay. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
HugoTHornet (
talk •
contribs)
16:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- an unremarkable YouTube personality (I'm assessing the current version, not the previous highjacked version). Sources are insufficient for either
WP:BIO or
WP:WEB, and are mostly tabloid-like such as OhMyMag.com. Other citations include the subjects YouTube channel. Nothing encyclopedically relevant here.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
17:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article now has a long list of sources, but it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. 3 of the 13 references are to OG's own Youtube channel; another 4 are to online tabloids (OhMyMg.com, PureBreak.com, Right This Minute, Manila Republic); 4 are less tabloid sources which don't meet
WP:RS (San Francisco Globe, Metro, Yorkshire Standard, Christian Post). That leaves only 2:
News12Westchester
[1], which is a 105-word plug for a TV show, with only 45 words mentioning OG's video
WFSTV
[2], which is the most substantive coverage anywhere; but it a mere 305-word synopsis of a video.
I don't see how either of these plugs for a local video-clips TV show is a
reliable source.
If you believe that any of those other articles fail
WP:N, then feel free to do your own analysis and open any AFDs which you think are appropriate. But their fate is irrelevant to this discussion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Mjbmr, I suggest that you spend more time learning how Wikipedia's policies and consensus-forming processes work, and that you drop the
WP:BATTLEGROUND approach displayed in your attempt to characterise participation in an AFD discussion as a "take down". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep He's becoming more and more famous everyday. Like the other commented said. If unremarkable people like Atwood can have a page. So should Omar! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.87.133.45 (
talk)
04:02, 23 April 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.
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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Comment - Even if the last AFD was 'Hijacked' I still don't feel this is notable and the argument of
other stuff exists like this is not a valid argument.
@
Mjbmr: that's quite a serious thing to say, in that it sounds perilously close to an accusation of stalking. Having said that, if
Hawkeye75 actually added nomination rationales, their reasons would be plain. For what it's worth, K.e.coeffmann has also AfD' a chunk of your articles, successfully too. Maybe it's your chosen subject matter ;) —
O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis10:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. This would be a weak keep; the article cites a few news stories but they do not add up to very extensive coverage. However, nominator provided no rationale, and I can confirm
Mjbmr's statement that the first delete !vote is in part based on a misapprehension; as Mjbmr says, see
User talk:MrProEdits#January 2017. The article was hijacked during the first deletion discussion, replaced with one about a non-notable YouTuber who uses the same name. After this was discovered, there was no objection stated to re-AfDing this article, but it was wrongly deleted and was therefore restored; this is not an illicit re-creation.
Yngvadottir (
talk)
12:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - If this was still an article about the "hijacked" subject, I would !vote delete due to a lack of coverage in reliable sources. As for this one, there isn't much under "OmarGoshTV"; however, searching using his real name reveals more hits. The citations given in the article seem to be of the "special interest" kind, but there does appear to be enough coverage specifically about him (as opposed to passing mentions) to establish notability.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew12:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Change to delete per BrownHairedGirl's analysis below. Upon her closer inspection, he has indeed received coverage, but most are of questionable reliability. By the way, I forgot to mention this earlier, but I was the nominator during the article's first nomination.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew00:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
reminder: your "Delete" !vote is assumed from the nomination and shouldn't be repeated. The usual thing is to call it "Comment" DGG (
talk )
18:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I've read articles about people who are barley known who only got an article because they knew the
Beatles or some other celebrity. Omar is pretty popular and keeps getting more popular. I think this should stay. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
HugoTHornet (
talk •
contribs)
16:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- an unremarkable YouTube personality (I'm assessing the current version, not the previous highjacked version). Sources are insufficient for either
WP:BIO or
WP:WEB, and are mostly tabloid-like such as OhMyMag.com. Other citations include the subjects YouTube channel. Nothing encyclopedically relevant here.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
17:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article now has a long list of sources, but it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. 3 of the 13 references are to OG's own Youtube channel; another 4 are to online tabloids (OhMyMg.com, PureBreak.com, Right This Minute, Manila Republic); 4 are less tabloid sources which don't meet
WP:RS (San Francisco Globe, Metro, Yorkshire Standard, Christian Post). That leaves only 2:
News12Westchester
[1], which is a 105-word plug for a TV show, with only 45 words mentioning OG's video
WFSTV
[2], which is the most substantive coverage anywhere; but it a mere 305-word synopsis of a video.
I don't see how either of these plugs for a local video-clips TV show is a
reliable source.
If you believe that any of those other articles fail
WP:N, then feel free to do your own analysis and open any AFDs which you think are appropriate. But their fate is irrelevant to this discussion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Mjbmr, I suggest that you spend more time learning how Wikipedia's policies and consensus-forming processes work, and that you drop the
WP:BATTLEGROUND approach displayed in your attempt to characterise participation in an AFD discussion as a "take down". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep He's becoming more and more famous everyday. Like the other commented said. If unremarkable people like Atwood can have a page. So should Omar! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.87.133.45 (
talk)
04:02, 23 April 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.