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 youtube comedian. I'm seeing only local coverage and a bunch of non-independent links.
Stuartyeates (
talk) 01:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. The "local coverage" appears to be isolated to the United States east coast, with significant and frequent coverage in New Jersey and New York media. These are newspapers and radio stations with potential audiences of millions. He also appears to have won a national television contest (America's Funniest People).
Pburka (
talk) 23:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Per above with the coverage issue. Also, I think the biggest complaint is that the article
predicts Vic's success in the future. But we DO know he is going to have a large role in a movie for sure. He also does quite a bit of stand-up comedic work at major resorts in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. His YouTube channel has over 25 million views and tens of thousands of subscribers. I think the nom does not give good enough
support to the lack of notability.
PrairieKid (
talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Vic has a significant role in Mall Cop 2. He is seen on the trailers and appears to be a key character alongside Kevin James. This exposes him to millions of people. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.94.173.136 (
talk) 23:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
KTC (
talk) 19:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Tom Morris (
talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The fact that the article doesn't have much information doesn't mean that it lacks notability. As long as there are enough secondary sources, it's worth keeping.--TMDTalk Page. 01:51, 16 January 2015 (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.