Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Van Oyen (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. I am sensitive to the NTEMP argument. However, that would carry more weight if the previous AfD had been a resounding "keep". It wasn't, with only 1 keep !vote, 1 weak keep, 1 ILIKEIT, and 2 delete (counting the nom). Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Van Oyen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His only claim to notability, his YouTube channel, has been removed, and his website no longer exists. carelesshx _talk 16:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable Youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable Youtuber who violated Youtube's ToS. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability - a radio interview and a newspaper reference - these are reliable sources but the coverage is not significant enough to pass GNG. - Euryalus (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I would argue that there is more than sufficient WP:NEXIST (of mainly medium to lower quality sources though) to support WP:GNG, unfortunately. (My view is that the social media age has allowed too many of this type of irresponsible anti social self promoter to become notable... but c'est la vie.) Aoziwe (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SMH is the only significant RS mention. wumbolo ^^^ 13:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability. Septrillion (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sorry gang, but he passed muster in the first discussion and I'm not seeing any reason to overturn other than the youtube channel is removed and website no longer exists. But notability is not temporary. If there's a reason to overturn the previous decision please make it--but the reasons I read above are based on the present state of coverage and not historical.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think the idea that notability is not transient is questionable, particularly when we're talking about social media celebrities but that's maybe not an argument for here. The article is currently out of date, though, as it refers to the subject in the present tense as a "candid camera and prank comedian" when, as stated, there is no evidence of this. If you were to bring the article up to date you would have an article on a guy who used to be on youtube (but isn't), wanted to be a photographer (but isn't), wanted to be a DJ (but isn't), has tweeted twice since January 2015, hasn't updated his facebook page since 2016... there is nothing that warrants an article except some failed ambitions, a radio interview and a court appearance. If you were writing the article now there is no way it would hold up. carelesshx _talk 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP is a guideline and guidelines are not infallable. Still, it is widely supported. Abraham Lincoln hasn't done anything since he died, but he's still notable. If this were a news source, I'd agree... but it's not, it's an encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2018 (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.