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.
Not notable; doesn't have any references that indicate notability and thorough searching doesn't reveal any references of note. IagoQnsi (
talk)
18:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - While the
JonTron page was redirected after an intense
fourth nomination, creating an article for Normal Boots and having material for JonTron and others, including
Did You Know Gaming?, which already inherits an stable article on its own, would be a better, and more stable way to contain encyclopedic content on JonTron and related people and shows that would not fall under notability issues. That's IF users on this Wikipedia can contribute instead of lazily choosing not to contribute and deleting pages, hence the
Template:Under Construction placed on top of the article. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂
19:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)reply
It's true that a Normal Boots article could be a good way to host JonTron information, but the notability of Normal Boots needs to be established first, through verifiable reliable sources indicating notability.
Notability is not inherited. -IagoQnsi (
talk)
20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'm a fan of JonTron et al, but Wikipedia's guidelines for notability are very clear. If someone can bring up some more sources to indicate notability, I'll by happy to retract my vote.
Hirohiigo (
talk)
00:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - Non-notable for WP's purposes, despite the "household" name that JonTron's created for himself on the Internet. --
MASEM (
t)
02:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)?reply
The use of terms in " " is often meant to denote sarcasm and it becomes clear when that was the intention with the the household comment when one looks at the recent JonTron AFD where Masem recommended merging the article with Game Grumps stating that without the unreliable sources there was not content to justify an article. This was earlier this month so I highly doubt that Masem changed his mind since then and that I'm sure that he would have made that clear if he has.--
67.70.140.89 (
talk)
20:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Come on, you're an experienced user - do you really need help figuring out ways that the GNG=/="household name"? (Answer: Lack of third party coverage deemed reliable by Wikipedia's standards.)
Sergecross73msg me21:43, 21 April 2014 (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.