Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumbo Jumbo (YouTuber) (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbo Jumbo (YouTuber)

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Number of youtube subscribers does not correlate to notability. Despite some blogs, there is no indication that he has been significantly covered in reliable sources. No indication from provided sources or searches that this individual is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant an article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Internet. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Andre🚐 07:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, search results are absolutely infested by those procedurally generated sites that list popular YouTubers in order to make ad revenue off small children, but the only semi-decent source I was able to find was this interview in GamesRadar+, which even if it were not a primary source would not be enough to showcase a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t delete. His influence to the community is seen, and doesn’t need to be reported. All his redstone creations on Minecraft earned him his popularity, therefore the paged shouldn’t be deleted. Windsor Yeh (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "influence to the community" is meaningless and feels more like an emotional statement than one of fact (and of course, to assert notability, it clearly does need to be reported or published in secondary reliable sources). Likewise, "popularity" is highly subjective and wikipedia does not recognise how "popular" a youtuber is (whether it be by subscribers or views). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally invalid argument for deletion. Earning popularity with a cohort of people does not negate the requirement for proof of notability. WP:ILIKEIT is an argument to avoid. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - popularity !== notability, as mentioned above. There does not appear to be any in-depth coverage about this person, as required to meet our notability criteria. firefly ( t · c ) 10:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have deleted the pages of far more popular and accomplished social media contributors for less. As there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources, notability standards are not met and the article should be deleted. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the WP:GNG, it's been discussed in the past that websites like "Sportskeeda", which this article is written around, does not meet Wikipedia's standard for being a reliable source either. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO - "popular" but not notable. KylieTastic (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, no reliable sources and few if any that don't look like fluff/SEO stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G11. ––FormalDude talk 04:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and does not pass WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2022 (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.