Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Desbiens

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. Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Desbiens

Jonathan Desbiens (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)

no evidence of notability. A speedy was unaccountably denied by another administrator DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I came by expecting to find he directed videos for his cousin's band or something, but holy moly, he is legit. E.g, the video for Beautiful Now on YouTube has over 100 million views. (All this probably explains why speedy was denied.) Yet I'm having trouble finding sources showing notability, though I certainly see mentions of him.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The number of views garnered by a YouTube video has nothing whatsoever to do with any Wikipedia inclusion criterion. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Surely not in any direct way. However, when a youtuber is extremely popular, it makes it more likely in practice that mainstream news coverage exists which would pass WP:GNG. That possibility is plainly attenuated for the director of music videos, if this case is representative.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but we still can't keep an article just because somebody assumes that adequate reliable source coverage probably exists. If nobody shows any evidence that the required depth of reliable source coverage does exist, then the number of views the video got provides no exemption from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No one is saying otherwise, Bearcat, at least in this AfD. I didn't title my comment "delete" only because I would wait to see if someone found sourcing, but the content of my comment currently is an argument for deletion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. There's potential notability here if the article were properly sourced, but there's nothing here that hands him an automatic must-be-included freebie in the absence of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. There's also a partial conflict of interest here, as the article has been edited by User:Jodebdirector. No prejudice against recreation if and when he becomes more sourceable than this, but nothing here allows him to keep an unreferenced article just because he and his work exist. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - I think we need to be consistent here. If the notability threshold is media coverage, then this fails. I did hunt down some minor coverage [[1]][[2]][[3]] but it's not enough. The limited coverage mentions a potential upcoming feature film, so let's call this WP:TOOSOON and see what happens when the film comes out. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Again an issue of borderline notability. Good list of very notable music videos that they directed however confirms notability.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Let me reiterate that they have worked on some very notable music videos that I even already knew before.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the above editor was just blocked for serial keep bombing numerous articles in rapid succession. I don't know the proper policy or I would revert all of the votes. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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.