Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hardcastle

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. Few of those arguing keep make reference to the presence of independent sources, and those arguing delete state that such sources are few and do not address the subject directly in enough detail to provide material upon which to base the article. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 19:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hardcastle

Daniel Hardcastle (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)

I couldn't find any articles or stories that were independent and reliable about the subject in question on Google News and Google. Therefore it fails WP:NWEB and thus is elligible for deletion. Acalycine(talk/contribs) 02:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are references from Eurogamer, Edge, Joystiq, Radio Times, Metro etc - notability has definitely been asserted through widespread coverage in major publications. Also, I found every one of these via Google and Google News, so unsure why you are apparently having problems. Nikthestunned 08:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The subject only got mentions in Eurogamer, Edge, Joystiq, Radio Times, Metro, etc. Mentions are most often not enough to assert notability, as per first bullet point of WP:GNG. I've found nothing in Google News searching Daniel Hardcastle -wikipedia or NerdCubed -wikipedia, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about there. I appreciate your vote. Acalycine(talk/contribs) 10:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally the way I found those sources lol (though I have had troubles since they removed the "archive search" I have to admit...) so don't know why they're no longer showing. Nikthestunned 11:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources only mention Hardcastle in passing. Joystiq has one sentence, which mentions someone describing him as a "big YouTuber", which isn't enough of a claim of notability; Radio Times is an article about an interview he did with Steven Moffatt, and says nothing about Hardcastle - not everyone who interviews a famous person is themselves famous; Edge has one sentence, describing him as a "YouTube personality", which again isn't a significant enough claim to notability. Clearly, he has some kind of following on YouTube, but not enough for reliable sources to discuss his work in depth, and not enough to meet our notability criteria. Moswento talky 10:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice amount of source coverage for this comedian. — Cirt (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the source coverage consists of a few passing mentions and a few sources sharing one of his interviews (without offering commentary on his work). Moswento talky 09:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not enough secondary sources to pass WP:N comfortably, but the article meets other parts of WP:N well enough to grant a pass. SpeedyAstro (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what other parts of WP:N this article meets? Acalycine(talk/contribs) 07:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." There are enough sources that just give a mention to give some information, (what is there to give? You can learn a lot about this person from his own fan following and channel, so secondary sources don't really have to analyze it) but not enough high-depth sources. Unless something happens, this page may stay a permanent stub, but, in my opinion, it is notable. Barely. SpeedyAstro (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are a lot of sources, yes, but most of them aren't about him and can't reasonably be used to build more information into the article. —Soap— 01:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a promotional article with no reliable 3rd person sources sources for notability. "[A notable game developed] attributed the success of his game to a number of people, including him" is not a accomplishment suitable for an encyclopedia, DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Daniel has a large following on YouTube spanning several million users. I think this in itself grants him notability. 217.23.235.99 (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the user just above me said, this page is purely promotional and is only gaining him notability, not informing users. Most of the sources are straight from Hardcastle himself. Bailmoney27 talk 16:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As you mentioned above many of the sources are from Hardcastle, who better to give information about a man than the man himself.
    Delete. That is precisely the reason why this article is being considered for deletion - there need to be reliable third-party sources. Dan can say whatever he wants about himself, but that doesn't mean it's true. There needs to be confirmation from sources other than the subject themselves. Xomm 22:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that this deletion consideration vote has been linked[1] on Dan's official subreddit today, so there may be a new voters coming in who are very biased. Just thought I would warn everyone. I'm not voting nor using my normal account because I know my vote would be biased. 198.71.103.80 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.reddit.com/r/nerdcubed/comments/24sw3u/dans_wikipedia_entry_is_being_deleted_hes_not/
  • Delete. I do feel biased towards keeping this article, but at the same time, the only sources that are available are ones that come from Dan himself or ones that barely mention him. Unless this can be addressed, this article should be deleted.
  • Keep. My POV is biased, but the article seems well-written and sourced properly. Dan has 1.6 million subscribers which to me speaks of notability for itself. Amunak (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are not enough third party sources with enough information for people to educate themselves about Daniel Hardcastle other than his own videos. If all you need for an article is your own videos as a source, anyone could make an article about themselves. 81.170.232.68 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Compare the article to the likes of Total Biscuit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Biscuit among others who are of a similar field. While it may be shorter or not as detailed it could be improved or updated with various content.
  • Delete as no indication of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This page has been linked to Reddit with a suggestive title. While I will not assume bad faith, it is fair to be notified that single purpose accounts may contribute to this discussion. http://www.reddit.com/r/nerdcubed/comments/24sw3u/dans_wikipedia_entry_is_being_deleted_hes_not/ Tutelary (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP OMG YOU CAN NOT DELETE THE PAGE OF SOMEBODY WHO IS SO SEXY. I CANT. I CANT EVEN. ---JuneSpaLove4eva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junespalove4eva (talk • contribs) 02:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)— Junespalove4eva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Dan has had a pretty big impact in the gaming world, influencing the futures of quite a few indie games, for example. I think that's worth some notability. Also, it's not as if this page is just a page about some random guy. Dan has a rather huge following of over one and a half million people, with over 750 videos uploaded. If this online celebrity isn't worthy of his own page, are any of them? Rakki9999111 (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His popularity isn't the issue. The problem is verifying information about him. If you can find articles or substantial mentions about him, that come from third party sources, then put them in the article and there won't be cause to delete, as it is, it's a stub article and its very poorly sourced. CaptainPedge | Talk | Guestbook 10:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP IM GUNNA SAY THIS AGAIN WE NEED TO KEEP THIS PAGE. I KNOW DAN WOULD SAY THE SAME. HES MY BOO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junespalove4eva (talk • contribs) 01:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Eventhough I am an avid supporter and subscriber to nerdcubed, it can not be overlooked, that the lack of anything substantial makes him appear as non notable. As much as the fan base might want a page on wikipedia for him, this is not the venue for such articles if they do not fit what Wikipedia requires. If you search for nerdcubed under news on google, nothing, nothing, returns. If you search for him by name, very little returns and nothing indicating notability. That said, video's such as The_Crazy_Nastyass_Honey_Badger have a page and even the creator when he doesn't even have over 200k subscribers or anything notable apart from a viral video that is less then amazing. I have seen many articles on wikipedia in my time that are significantly less notable than Daniel_Hardcastle and as such, we as a community, can not in good faith delete this article because of a lack of news articles. There were a lack of news articles about the holocaust during WWII, as such, would this community have said "Because there are no news articles showing notability, the holocaust will not have an article?? I know this is a bit of an extreme example, but there is NO compelling reason to have the article deleted. I suggest that instead of deletion, we give the community time to come up with a more valid group of sources and other information that will point at notability. I purpose a template and give the community 30 days to make it suitable to Wikipedia standards. I will also note, that some of the reason that there is a lack of articles is due to Dan not being very socially involved. He is slightly reclusive and as such, because he has not agreed to interviews or the like, we can not condemn this article because the subject in question, doesn't like being in the center of attention. Jab843 (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC). In response to there being a lack of articles, under Wikipedia guidelines, notable is not the same as famous, I do not see this article going against Wikipedia guidlines. Jab843 (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

02:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep The article in question revolves around a person who has a notable following Samuel Tarling (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tweet by Daniel Hardcastle himself says to delete the entry: https://twitter.com/DanNerdCubed/status/464313803396898816 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.70.86 (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The tweet merely says he doesn't care either way, also, this is a discussion among wikipedia editors, if you are posting without an account, please do not do so as you are most likely not knowlegable about why this article is being debated and are adding nothing significant to the discussion. Jab843 (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jab843, any IP editor and brand new user has the same amount of privilege and sway as any administrator or even Jimmy Wales. They can formulate arguments, but they have to rooted into policy. Given the fact that the IP contributed to this page, they are by the very definition considered an Wikipedia editor. Please don't bite new comers, and assume good faith. Albeit, the appropriate response is that while he doesn't care, it's a discussion of policy and guidelines, not votes. Tutelary (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that they have the same rights, I am merely stating that they are, on the whole, unfamiliar with the policy that we are debating and are speaking from the heart, not wikipedia. And I am more than aware that this is a discussion not a vote. Jab843 (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacing in depth coverage in reliable sources. Lots of mentions and quotes in reliable sources, but not in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yikes, what a mess. So this broadcaster is certainly not unknown and is mentioned (operative word) in a few sources as an influential Let's Play recorder [1][2], but mostly in the comments, which doesn't count. The article would need actual coverage of the subject himself and not a series of mentions of the notable guests he has had or what things surrounding him have gone on to do. The article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have more than cursory hits in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar ♔ 04:05, 11 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Hardcastle&oldid=1220797201"