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.
Fails
WP:JOURNALIST or
WP:ANYBIO. Even as a YouTuber with over 60million views there's still not enough a reliable source, just being a youtube personality with 60M view doesn't assert notability. Fails
WP:RS and
WP:SIGCOV. I also found self published sources from Jekko.
Lapablo (
talk) 06:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Your proposal for deletion seems to hang on his YouTube career. I agree his YouTube presence doesn't stand alone, but at ~600k subscribers it does deserve a mention. And that's what it gets - a mention.
I have removed the
Jekko sources. The two articles in question were Conner's coverage of Presidents Obama and Trump. They merely served as the fact he had covered them. Coming from traditional media, I had found it credible he covers presidential visits without the backing of an established news agency.
The difficulty in covering Conner is definitely the disjointed nature of his career. In the future we can reorganize this article and add to it.
Popscreenshot (
talk) 10:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Note:Popscreenshot is the creator of the article and that the picture he uploaded to the page was said to be "own work" and is also being considered for deletion. There's a possible COI here.
Lapablo (
talk) 22:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The image was flagged because of this nomination. The issues are tied. To respond to the possible COI allegation, as a former Pittsburgh journalist I frequently ran across Conner. I would not classify us as friends. I was not paid or asked to create this article. I believe I edited this article in good faith. That said, I welcome an requests to edit.
Popscreenshot (
talk) 23:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 14:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Reluctantly agree that this person passes
WP:GNG and article is sourced well
Gristleking (
talk) 13:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Only additional input beyond the nominator and the creator was CU blocked, so let's try for some more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c) 14:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep: He passes
WP:GNG. Could be reread by an independent wikipedian for COI control.
FIFAukr (
talk) 14:22, 12 April 2019 (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.