Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kip Kay

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 keep. (non-admin closure). maucho eagle _(c) 00:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kip Kay

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is: Promotional, Stub, Mainly from primary sources Eftertanke (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like Kip Kay's videos, and am a subscriber. All the same I have to be objective and say that most of the information in this article came from primary sources and this article looks promotional or fan-made to me. Eftertanke (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant coverage in WP:RS, noted in references section. Chester Markel (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information in this article is verifiable/expandable by using reliable secondary sources. Kip Kay seems to be an important internet personality. The article has potential.Stub? - not a reason for deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's important to note, if every "important" YouTuber were given a four sentence long article, WP would become quite a mess. Eftertanke (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works of this YouTuber were noted by multiple reliable sources and that's important for this project. Wikipedia has a lot of short articles, people here call them stubs. They are entirely legitimate, as far as I know. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significance as a (very) well-known internet publisher subtantiated by references from reliable sources.Opbeith (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I first came across this article, it was in this shape, with blogs being the only sources. Although I felt it was not quite a speedy candidate, I decided to leave the speedy deletion tag in place and leave a response to the hangon rationale on the talk page. But my concerns have clearly been addressed after that, even if not by the people who replied to be. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. exactly per Blanchardb with the same reaction. In spite of the dead WSJ link which was probably good at the time, dedicated articles in other important newspapers assert notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that were used prior May 2011 were perhaps not good enough for a keep, but the articles which have been recently are fit to be considered reliable? Can it be confirmed that LA Times Blog, Central Florida News 13, and VideoMaker Magazine are important newspapers? I have very little confidence "important newspapers" is the best description of those sources. black widowh ex Talk 22:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a guideline for that too, but I shouldn't worry, as I !voted 'keep', and it looks very much as if that will be the consensus here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KipKay has almost million YouTube subscribers, his videos have racked up more than 235 million views on YouTube [1] and his popularity was noted by multiple independent and reliable sources. I think this topic has potential to develop into something that says more about the world we live in. It is an interesting piece of information that enriches our coverage of the Internet pop culture. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I did find an online NY Times article on Kip Kedersha. I was going to demur on the Youtube count thing, but the source I found has a bias. black widowh ex Talk 03:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it this article? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have made it more clear that I found two articles. Yes, you found the NY Times article. The other article is from CNS News and it is this one. It says that the Youtube had frozen the count for a video that went "viral". Some web developers may consider web counters amateurish, so I am not exactly sure why a Youtube counter would be used as evidence. black widowh ex Talk 21:26, 23 May 2011 (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.