Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Tye (2nd nomination)

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. Kurykh (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Tye (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)

This article fails WP:GNG. The main source is IMDb which is a source with questionable reliability (see WP:CITINGIMDB). The other source is a blog. The claim that he is the second vlogger in China is also questionable. Simonliyiyu (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Delete - I did a quick Google search for this individual, and the only hit for him is IMDb, which is considered generally unreliable by Wikipedia standards. The other hits are to his self-published Instagram. The Google Scholar links do not appear to be associated with the person in question. After narrowing the search with the keyword "China", the only significant and reliable coverage of this vlogger is from a Forbes article on the hazards of making friends in China. The individual appears notable only for a single event and this fails WP:NOT § NEWS (see what Wikipedia is not). The claim that he is the second vlogger in China is totally unsubstantiated by any sources. Inkedotly (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC) — Inkedotly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - Plenty of vloggers out there, this one clearly doesn't meet notability guidelines. Agree with nom. Dkoenig9352 (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC) — Dkoenig9352 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Striking sockpuppets of nominator per SPI. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:ENT. Promotional article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Negligible sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. My searches for sources did not return substantial coverage about the subject. He fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per above editors. Does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I agree the article is poorly sourced, however as for failing the GNG please review these@K.e.coffman, Xxanthippe, Cunard, and Onel5969:: on Yibada, thasmags, thebejinger, miltech. Seeing as this was a poor nomination like Sturzel the nominator's rationale and motvies are not to be trusted. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Thanks for the ping. Not impressed with the sources, however. Yibada is questionable as to whether or not it's a RS. The article you cite seems to come from an outside contributor. Thatsmags is a marketing company. Beijinger is a blog. And Miltech is press release. So I don't think there's a single independent reliable source there.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:59, 15 May 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.