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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Mitch Hughes

Mitch Hughes (  | 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 cannot see how this person satisfies Notability requirements. Most references are his own YouTube videos - none that are about him, as far as I can tell. I tagged this for PROD on 3 December and the original author, FiendYT, removed that tag saying "More reliable references can I be found. This person is a major figure in the Minecraft gaming community. A you tuber with 5 million subscribers should be notable enough for recognition. He has also worked with other famous youtubers, like Adam Dahlberg." I do not accept that for the following reasons:

1. Notability requires verifiable evidence, not just making vague statements that you think there are some references out there somewhere.
2. If this person is very well known then it should be easy enough to find detailed coverage in reliable, independent sources. Yet I can't find them - the best reference I could find is just a passing mention in this New York Times article.
3. Who he may have worked with, or be friends with, is not relevant.
4. The figure of 5 million subscribers is interesting, but is hardly a notability criterion by itself.

A couple of new references were added since then, one of which is a press release that does not count much for notability because - well, because it is a press release. So that leaves one possible actual reliable reference: the one from streamdaily. I don't think that is enough to meet WP:GNG. Gronk Oz ( talk) 12:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Cannot find in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, hence does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Citobun ( talk) 13:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. (The best search term is "BajanCanadian" without the "The".) There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. czar 19:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete for now at best as my searches found a few several links at News, browsers and Highbeam but perhaps nothing for a solidly better notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Wikipedia does not grant an automatic inclusion freebie to every YouTube personality who exists, or who can be merely asserted (but not adequately sourced) as a "major figure" in some gaming fandom, or who's "notable" just for working with somebody else — and the number of subscribers a YouTube channel gets has absolutely nothing to do with anything either. An article about a YouTube personality lives or dies on the volume of reliable source coverage that can be cited to support it, and no number of subscribers on any social media platform confers an entitlement to keep a Wikipedia article that isn't supported by RS coverage — and with just one non- primary source, the volume of coverage shown here is not enough. Bearcat ( talk) 20:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable YouTube personality who lacks adequate references to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:46, 24 December 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.