Talk:List of YouTubers/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Add Ray William Johnson!

So where did everything go? Erased because your bias couldn't get over the fact that numerous viable sources were supplied but you just don't want to add RWJ to the list? Why was everything taken down? Add Ray William Johnson, or restore the information and sources we had here! Underwoodl06 (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess having all discussions that are over 30 days old get automatically moved to the archives by a bot didn't occur to you. Underwood, you need to take a Wiki break because you are upset that he isn't on the list and the links you provided didn't meet the standards set fourth by years of discussions by many editors. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I need to take a break? How about you two people do that. it is YOU that are adding your personal feelings about hi to the mix and denying every acceptable article. When did you become the police of wikipedia? This site can be edited by Everyone and you guys take down everything YOU don't find acceptable because YOU have personal bias against anything YOU don't like. Let people edit freel like WP is meant and stop being biased to every article that supports RWJ. So how about YOU take a break and stop policing because of your own feelings just because RWJ is popular on the internet. Oh, and why don't you do a search and use the correct form of speech while you are at it, or should I be the one to edit that for you? 'Forth' not 'fourth'

~I agree, we need a serious revolt here. Throw out the two prejudiced admins who can't even follow their own standards. We, the wikipedia community want RWJ on the list, and there have been dozens of logical reasons to put him there. Rjc34 (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! However they think they rule WP and won't leave it alone.Underwoodl06 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The community doesn't necessarily know who RWJ is. I know I don't. 24.137.120.159 (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree too, RWJ is more famous than many other YouTube personalities on this list. virus_boss (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

More famous? Famous? I never even heard of RWJ until I came over here to help edit this list. He's famous on YouTube only. Outside of YouTube nobody's heard of him, he isn't mentioned (or barely mentioned) in any sort of mainstream media. And that's the difference between Popularity and Notability. Popularity is everyone in your school loving the star quarterback and thinking he's the greatest. Notability is mainstream media and NFL talent scouts looking into your school from the outside and thinking he's the greatest too. And that sort of notability hasn't happened to RJW - yet. It may happen, and it may happen soon. But so far, though he may be wildly popular on YouTube, he's only wildly popular there. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Johnny. You helped prove my point! Let's just hope they get it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

But this is a list about youtube personalities why is notability outside of youtube a requirement?, also I doubt anyone will 'get it' you have no argument to stand on, this is a list of youtube personalities, rwj is a youtube personality with a wide fanbase. There is nothing to get, the fifth pillar allows for bending of the rules when they get in the way of improving an article, also some of those discussions weren't 30 days old72.209.160.88 (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Johnny, you just proved a point so that half of the people should be removed from the list because they are only known on YouTube and not on external media. I am sure I could ask millions of people and find that they don't know of and have neverheard of 80% of the people on this list. But a majority would certainly know who RWJ is. So how about the two WP police fix the list and remove about half of the people to make it follow WP standards that have been set forth by years of discussions by editors.Underwoodl06 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

[More comments redacted. Stop attacking people. Fences&Windows 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)]

I removed a comment here. Add anything again attacking editors in those terms and I will block you, Underwoodl06. Fences&Windows 00:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, Seeing as I am 'Attacking' when I am not mentioning anybody by name, I will stop editing here and let everyone figure this out for themselves. I will no longer be fighting this battle even though the people talking on this page have admitted they have added non-notable people on the list but they stopped when RWJ came into play. They have agreed that some people shouldbe taken off of the list, but they will not be the ones to do it and that others should go ahead and remove those who don't 'meet the criteria set forth by years of discussions on WP', but it was perfectly alright for them to remove RWJ when he appeared on the list, or add anybody that was removed by another editor. They have brought me up by name on this talk page because I was 'attacking' them and they have mentioned me by name on their own user talk pages so I will be notifying the administrators of WP. As far as this battle goes, I give up because we know how people here can get and won't stop trying to rule 'their page'. With a website edited by the people, I can hardly see that these discussions are relevant since they always seem to be up to the person that spends his entire day eyeing the page for the slightest change and have nothing better to do than 'be in charge' of the information here. WP no longer registers in my most trusted sources since this whole website can be editted by anybody on any terms so as they see fit, along with IMDB and personal blogs. I will not 'attack' anybody (since I never mentioned any names at all in my posts) although I am sure my name will circulate here for quite a bit of time since it is alright for them to attack me. Good luck WP community on your fight to add one of the most notable people on YouTube and I hope you aren't running into the same BS I have been pushed into due to my 'personal attacks' on nobody in particular (because we all know that a general group includes names). And as always for those intent to get the greatest internet celebrity added here, "Keep on Trollin'" Underwoodl06 (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Move for deletaion Philip Le aka Schizophillic

{{edit protected}} With 53 current subscribers and less then 5000 total channel views the level required for notoriety has not been reached. --Seanet1310 (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The reference cited in his support is not about him. I added the appropriate template to notify another admin to make this edit. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The name has been removed. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 10:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation required Joe Penna akaMysteryGuitarMan

Currently there is no citation credible or otherwise on this page for Joe as such this should be rectified with a reliable source as required by other youtube personalities to be added or should be removed to meat wikipedia standards. --Seanet1310 (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)--

But he has an article at Joe Penna with a number of citations. There is no requirement that the references have to be on this page if readers can easily find them on the linked article. Regards SoWhy 10:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Toby Turner

I definitely think that he should be present on this list. He has almost 750 thousand subscribers, and is the 39th most subscribed Youtuber. He has many well known videos, including several of his literal trailers. Also, he has donme several none internet things as a result of his Youtube popularity. A quick Google search gets several articles about him: 1, 2, and there are others out there. And for this reason, I think that he should be added to this list. Discdeath (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the number of subscribers are not enough to equate notability. Secondly, the references are not goood enough. The first one isn't really much of an article. It doesn't talk about him in depth. It just talks about the style of his videos. The second reference points to a bunch of articles that have been posted. Find some other more suitable references and we will look them over. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Tobuscus is actually becoming one of the most well-known YouTube identities. I'm actually shocked he doesn't have his own Wikipedia article. He's coming up on passing Danebo in subscribers, and he has a rumored relationship with iJustine. I guess connections don't get people onto Wikipedia, though. But considering Toby's constantly growing popularity and instant hits on his videos and such, he deserves to at least be put on this list, if not have an article written about him. He's that damn good. --Arkatox (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone should add him then. Personally, I think the dude's hilarious. He's been taken under the wing of Philip DeFranco, AKA sxephil. PokeHomsar (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal feelings need to be left out. Wikipedia doesn't write based on what your personal feelings about a person are. Personally I like YouTubers Jory Caron, Riley McIllwain, and Jon Paula. But they won't be added to this list because suitable sources can't be found for them. Again, speak from an NPOV because want to keep Wikipedia as neutral as possible. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I kind of suck at finding links to anything, I can tell you that he has been involved in several things which may indicate notability. He was a contestant in that "Just Dance Off" thing a while ago. He took a part in something to do with the Sony Internet T.V., Ubisoft paid a lot of attention to one of his literal Trailers of their games, and lots of other things. As I said, I'm bad at finding links, but I can provide links to some of his videos which show him in these events (although I doubt that they count). Sony T.V., Just Dance 2 thing. Discdeath (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that he went to E3 2010! :D --Arkatox (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just found out that he's going again this year to E3, but this time it's on behalf of Ubisoft. Also, he does quite a few conferences and things. But still, I cannot find the suitable links. Discdeath (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and he might interview some game developers too. Here's the link to the vlog video. --Arkatox (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be hard to find sources on him. When one is found, then by all means bring it to our attention and it will be looked at. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not totally sure if this would count. But it's him on "Youtube Spotlight", which I think would mark him as somewhat notable, but I'm not totally sure. Discdeath (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, his latest video has been posted in a bunch of places. IGN, Kotaku, and CBS, to name but a few. Discdeath (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's all fine and well, but we need some reliable sources like a news article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again, another not completely sound source. Here is Toby's page on Wikitubia (the YouTube wiki). I'll say though, before I first edited it a few months ago, it was complete crap, and now every couple weeks or something some noob will edit it to add some information (but do it badly), and make the page look less professional (in other words, I need to constantly edit that page, pretty much). That wiki is just full of people who don't know how to write correctly. Oh well, now I'm rambling. I do that a lot. --Arkatox (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No Wiki type links. Those can be edited by anybody. We want a news article from a reliable secondary source. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I may finally be onto something here. Here he is mentioned on guardian.co.uk, hopefully this might count. But I'll leave that up to you to decide. Discdeath (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep up the search. That article gives him a one sentence mention. We need an article dedicated to him and not an article highlights best of the Internet during the week. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As I think should be more than obvious by now, I'm not totally sure what type of stuff would count. So I'll just put some stuff out there, in the hopes that some is of the suitable category 1, 2, 3. Discdeath (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I might be able to shed some light on your confusion, Discdeath. I worked on getting a band on Wikipedia a couple of years back. And while they had quite a growing following and found more than a little popularity on YouTube, it wasn't until it could be shown from independent sources (non-blogger reviews, major media outlets) that this band was considered an icon and even an archetypal example of their genre that Wikipedia admin consensus moved toward allowing the page to stand. In other words, just being popular on YouTube isn't enough; he needs to be notable (i.e. noticed) by outside sources as being significant, not just by his fan base. That's the difference between popularity and notability. Popularity is everyone in high school liking the star quarterback. Notability is local and regional media and league scouts looking into that high school and taking an interest in him as well. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I realize this, the point is that he does get attention outside of Youtube, he gets called in to give talks at various conferences, companies use him to help advertise products, he gets hired to promote things, he's had a part in a film which had a favourable reception at sundance. The problem is that there just don't seem to be many articles explicitly about him.

And so Tobuscus has surpassed Daneboe, and is coming up close (within 20,000 subscribers) to SHAYTARDS. Both of them are on the list. I guess I'll just keep up the article search. I wonder if Toby knows about the great battle to get him onto Wikipedia. Lol. --Arkatox (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Here's one. Promotional, yes, but considering what it's promoting, a partnership with a fairly large company, I think it's important. And I think you guys need to understand that news about his works (the literal trailers for example) translate into notability for him. For example, Dane Boedigheimer, who has already been mentioned above. He is in the article and he has no Wikipedia article himself. Silverseren^C 15:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nichole337?

Does she deserve to be on here? I mean she does have well over 50 million views , hundreds of videos and a huge following — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGill999 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

We need some reliable secondary sources showcasing notability of said person before she will be added. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This notability issue is rubbish. This is a list of the top YOUTUBE personalities -- the only secondary source we should require is that YouTube lists them as of their top. They should not require separate notoriety unless we are talking about whether or not they have their own wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.129.106 (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Where in the article title or in the article itself that does it's about TOP YouTube personalities only? By only having top YouTube personalities on this list would exclude personalities that are notable in favour of someone who isn't notable yet is POPULAR. Popularity doesn't equate notability. So that's why a lot of YouTube personalities are not on the list. If you can prove her notability with reliable secondary sources then by all means do so. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Unlock this page already.

This page was locked because of two people who are going against everyone else on this page! This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia of the people (that's what wiki stands for,) so why in God's name can two people hijack a page against everyone else?

Add Ray Wlliam Johnson, as he is clearly a YOUTUBE personality. It doesn't matter if 100% of the non-YouTube community doesn't have any idea who he is. That's not the point. This isn't a list of simple "media personalities," this is a list of YouTube celebrities. He's the second most subscribed YouTube personality in the world. His videos have been viewed over 800 million times. That's more than twice the population of the United States! PokeHomsar (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you read my post just above, you should know by now that unless the rulers of every nation mention him and a whole memoir spanning the years from the dawn of time to the present point in time that includes his works and has at least a set of 36 volumes of books about him that must receive every award known to literature and then has to have a movie made about it and be a box office hit among a majority of the world and the heavens above, there is no intention of adding RWJ to this list. Good luck with this battle but I have given up due to my 'many personal attacks' that I clearly have mentioned by name[sarcmark], and I will not fight those who can do nothing better than sit here and argue. If you read my statement above you will see some new information I have found due to a personal attack on me on a user talk page.

Good Luck and 'Keep on Trollin'Underwoodl06 (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, as you can see due to our pointing out of people having poor references and no notability whatsoever, the removals have begun of the non-notable people that were allowed on the list before Ray William Johnson's inclusion was brought into question. It is funny how this website works. :P Underwoodl06 (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is no question to me that Ray William Johnson meets standard list requirements for inclusion on this list. He has been covered in numerous media sources; granted, not a lot of individual coverage profile pieces, but enough in the aggregate no question.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There are two -- TWO -- intransigent people standing in the way of adding RWJ. I waded into this accidentally and have been amazed at the disgusting way they are putting their own egos ahead of creating an accurate page. I don't edit often but I would like to know what the procedure is for lodging complaints against these two roadblocks. Their behavior and threats have no place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.237.7 (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the good news is that the dynamic duo will lose eventually. The reality is that they are fighting the inevitable -- RWJ is notable even if there has not been a major motion picture made about his life yet. While the duos objections are NOT justified, soon the addition of RWJ will be totally beyond their ability to refuse. 206.176.237.7 (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to see any reliable sources given for Ray William Johnson. If you want to include him, then you need to show that he had been covered by news media. Silverseren^C 23:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see Fences&Windows has given some below. Silverseren^C 23:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.9.81.236, 6 March 2011

{{edit protected}} RayWilliamJohnson

1. 2 - Most Subscribed (All Time)
2. 2 - Most Subscribed (All Time) - Comedians

69.9.81.236 (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

He does have some media coverage mentioning him, so it's certainly a possibility: "There is Ray William Johnson, who makes sense of it all by reviewing YouTube's best."[1] See [2][3][4]. Not enough for an article, but possibly enough to list here. Fences&Windows 00:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur 206.176.237.7 (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC) (There are also previously cited references in the San Fransisco Chronicle and the UK's Independant. 206.176.237.7 (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you not bother to look at the articles? You seem to be trying to pass any mention of Ray William Johnson as suitable. The first article says: "There is Ray William Johnson, who makes sense of it all by reviewing YouTube's best." How are you supposed to source anything with that? The second article titled "Three Ways Brands Can Act More Like Partners On YouTube" is not about one person but YouTube as a whole. Can't source anything with that. The third source titled: "Pop!shots: ‘Equals Three’ goes viral" is not suitable as it only talks about his YouTube show. His show is not going to get him on the list. The link to The Independent is not suitable. It just a list of articles on other stuff. These have been rejected before and will continually be rejected. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

KevinTThoms

Kevin T Thoms is a technically a youtube personality. Sectus (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Potential Compromise?

This is for Ray William Johnson's inclusion of the article. His channel can be found here

I simply don't understand the reasoning behind RWJ's exclusion. Sure he may not have full-blown reports written about by the New York Times or such, but the opposing side in my opinion is not being reasonable. He is the second most subscribed user on the entire website of YouTube, consistently tops the site's "Most Viewed" page and has collaborated with other personalities that are on the list already. He has been mentioned in many articles written by notable, reliable sources (check above for all the given sources; not all fit I concede, but several do). If these references are taken as a whole, then yes I do think it is reasonable to include RWJ to achieve consensus, which is a Wikipedia guideline.

For those who do not agree with his inclusion, please just add a "", "", or even "" after RWJ's potential entry, instead of leaving him out entirely. This is in effort to achieve a compromise, and would result in less edit warring, IMO. --Chiefmartinez (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't have an opinion on him having an article one way or the other right now....but do you have sources of reliable 3rd party coverage? CTJF83 12:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because he is mentioned in reliable third sources doesn't mean the article is worth using. All of these articles have him listed in a "YouTube Videos of the Week" articles, one sentence, or some measly paragraph. If he doesn't have a full-blown article on him, then he isn't notable enough to warrant one. That's what people are failing to see. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

How do i report this discussion page to the WP staff? The two users constantly removing information should have their accounts reviewed by official WP employees and treated accordingly, followed by a proper investigation of the RWJ inclusion debate in accordance to the rules of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speighticus (talk • contribs) 04:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur. They have vandalized the page repeatedly. Still, as I said above, their eventual loss is inevitable. Much as I don't like RWJ much, I relish the thought of these two getting 'handled' by the Wiki-community or, even better, the day they have to give up this silly feud. 206.176.237.7 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Jenkees is back

Dear collegues,

Ronald Jenkees was added again as a youtube celebrity. I've discovered him through this article about year ago. Then he disappeared from the article, I was looking for him for the last 6 months, including asking people in this discussion ([|Disappeared celebrity, 21 January, 2011]). Before deleting him again, please, take a look at what he does.

Yours sincerely, Ivan

--91.79.198.121 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ray William Jonson - List of Sources

Look, I get it. Mr CC and SoWhy will continue their campaign against Johnson. I would spoof them but I think Poe's law would come into play. (Any possible spoof I could do of them would just sound like them.) So, rather than add RWJ with an unreasonable number of references, and be threatened by the dynamic duo with banning or worse, I will simply list the sources here:

1 -> http://news.tubefilter.tv/2011/03/10/quick-clicks-youtube-creator-institute-vimeo-party-ray-william-johnson-angry-birds/

This Tubefilter article says "Johnson continues to tear up the most subscribed list on YouTube and seems ready to knock Ryan Higa off this top spot later this spring at the rate he’s going." This is a clear indication of his notability and his staying power. The article predicts that he will take over as the most subscribed producer on YouTube.

2 -> http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/03/club-villain-lord-voldemort-greeted-vader-with-a-fist-pound/

In this piece by Wired, Johnson is credited with creation of viral video . (He has so many viewers that by reviewing a video he gives it notoriety.)

3 -> http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/what-does-co-za-asy-mean-youtube-2763300.html

This article by Now Public credits Johnson with the creation of a meme. (Johnson’s mispronunciation of a polish comment on one of his videos has become a phrase in common use on the internet.)

4 -> http://adage.com/article/digital/youtube-s-premium-content-strategy-starts-shape/149373/

Ad Age confirms Johnson’s status as second most subscribed on YouTube.

5 -> http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.ssf/2011/03/bay_city_mans_taco_bell_order.html

The Bay City times credits Johnson with causing an otherwise relatively dormant video to become viral by reviewing it. In just over a year it got 16000 views and then, after Johnson reviewed it, it received 900,000 in two weeks. He used his notoriety to make another video famous.

6 -> http://www.inishowennews.com/011YouTubeViral078.htm

This Inishowen Independent discusses a video become viral after “YouTube Superstar” Johnson reviewed it on his show. More transference of Notoriety.

7 -> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/youtubes-mostwatched-videos-snowboarder-lands-first-ever-triple-cork-2205488.html

The UK’s Independent lists YouTubes most watched videos and Johnson appears twice in the top ten list. (This is a major UK newspaper)

8 -> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/02/05/businessinsider-top-viral-videos-of-the-week-5-2011-2.DTL

The San Francisco Chronicle calls Johnson a “YouTube Star” and notes that he is credited with four of the most viewed YouTube videos of the week.

9 -> http://www.businessinsider.com/top-viral-videos-of-the-week-11-2011-3#how-the-videos-are-ranked-1

The Business Insider credits Johnson with 2 of the top ten most viewed videos of the week.

10 -> http://www.businessinsider.com/bidding-wars-breakout-over-youtubes-front-page-2010-2

The Business insider, in an article about “Web Celebrities” states that Johnson averages more views than CBS each week.

11 -> http://www.businessinsider.com/most-watched-videos-of-september-2010-9

Johnson credited with second most view viral video of the week behind Justin Beiber - September 2011. The article also credits Johnson with an average daily 1.6 million viewers.

12 -> http://www.businessinsider.com/top-10-viral-videos-of-october-2010-11

The Business Insider says that Johnson “continued his dominance of the internet” and credits him with holding seven spots on the list of the top 100 most watched viral videos list and that four of those are in the top 15.

While Batman and Robin might be able to come up with reasons that some of these individual videos do not stand on their own as enough recognition of RJW's notoriety, they certainly do collectively. The San Francisco Chronicle refers to him as a YouTube Star and there are countless examples of his show being in the top rated Viral videos and the Top Rated YouTube videos. This page IS supposed to be a list of YouTube personalities -- Johnson is nothing if he is not that.

75.61.129.106 (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but an article about the ten top ten videos of the week don't work as sources. They don't talk about him. All the sources don't have full blown articles on him. Basically you are copy and pasting links that have already been presented. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ya, can you find full articles? Like interviews or something? CTJF83 11:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• How about this source? Silverseren^C 09:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good source describing his impact since a major site like CNN investigates such occurrences. But is it sufficient as coverage, if it mainly covers what iTunes did? Regards SoWhy 12:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple solution Create the article Ray William Johnson using the sources you've collected. It will probably get sent to AfD. If it survives AfD, there's no reason not to add it to the article. If it doesn't survive it, drop it. AfD will bring in a larger number and wider variety of editors involved. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Such an article has been deleted multiple times to the point that the title has been WP:SALTed. Regards SoWhy 14:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"They don't talk about him?" - Are you kidding? Many of them specifically talk about him; referring to his 'dominance of the internet' and calling him a YouTube star and citing his position as the second most subscribed to channel on YouTube. Look, this is NOT a proposal to create a Wiki page for Johnson, this is simply to add him on a list of YouTube personalities. These sources, and the SPECIFIC things they say about him, combined with his consistent success with ratings (views) and fast growing list of subscribers clearly demonstrates that he is a "YouTube Personality". Perhaps there is not a single source that you like, yet, but in the collective, these sources, combined with his position as the second most subscribed channel on YouTube and the over three million hits on GOOGLE (for "Ray William Johnson") combine to make his inclusion on this list, if not is own page, obvious. 75.61.129.106 (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The article on him has been deleted ten times as it has not survived any of the AfD discussions. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of links here, some of which I haven't seen yet. I'm going to try to read all of the links mentioned above this week, and determine for myself if there is enough there yet to warrant notability or not. I know firsthand that sometimes Wikipedia editors can develop biases, so I want to be sure for myself that the current majority opinion (i.e. not notable enough yet) is still the correct one. Not saying I'll change my mind, just saying I'll keep an open one. ;) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that CNN article arguably counts as one of the two sources needed to minimally pass NOTE. Has anyone created a sandbox article about him in userspace or elsewhere? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Black

Should Rebecca Black be added? Whole bunch of potential sources here:

http://news.google.co.nz/news/more?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=bJq&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&q=rebecca+black&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dDu5kQ9ajYWjdZM1w6hY5cdZrGHwM&ei=VaeATYDFL4uisAPy34SUBg&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CC0QqgIwAA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.247.220 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you'd have to go through and see which sources are just a brief mention (which aren't good enough) and which are thorough stories on her. CTJF83 20:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• As for sources, how about this and this? Significant, in-depth coverage of her and the video. Silverseren^C 22:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• [5], [6], [7]. I think that should be enough, but I could easily go on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.247.220 (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think five reliable sources that all exclusively talk about her and the impact of her video are enough to warrant inclusion on this list. Regards SoWhy 15:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

ADD ]Youtube!!!!

This page is a list of YouTube #1's, just because you seem to have a personal vendetta against the bloke does not mean that you can discard the second most subscribed youtuber in the world from the list. This is not a list of who you think is good or credible. It is a list of Youtube personalities. Based on his extreme popularity on YOUTUBE i would say he is far more of a famous youtube personality than most of the other people on the page. As for credibility and sources what more do you want than his huge popularity. You say that number of subscribers is not relevant, however wikipedia is a public site and the public have made him popular. so, stop being such a gradge holding idiot and and him to the list.

First of all this is not a popular video maker but ... maker of Ball Rollers 3 by theawsomeness33 you are amazing! i heard all the filming done was from an ipod or iphone also his or her video was hilarious. So our #1 video is Ball Rollers 3 and also Trampoline Basketball by theawsomeness33.

1. 2 is Shanes Dawson's Christmas love story ... that one is sooo funny but not as good as #1

to find out more good videos go to theawsomeness33's youtube page they have all great videos go check it out now.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ALLNET11 (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is not a list of "YouTube #1's". It is a list of notable YouTube personalities. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

HERE IS YOUR RAY WILLIAM JOHNSON SOURCE FINALY!! NOW PUT HIM ON THE LIST!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oyr36vhxRU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.168.27 (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, that's not a secondary source. Nice try though... Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a secondary source to me. Why isn't it? It's probably a copy vio, which means it can't be linked to (because it isn't posted by the company behind the program), but the original broadcast appears to be an Israeli news show. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Gee, that figures. TV coverage isn't secondary.. wonder how many people on the list have news segments used as sources... same game still I see.Underwoodl06 (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the main issue is that, while it's valid coverage, we can't exactly reference that youtube video, because it violates WP:YOUTUBE. And if we're going to make sure that all of the people on the list have a reference attached, then we need to have something that we can put on there. Of course, I feel that we already have more than sufficient news coverage from discussions above, but... *shrugs* Silverseren^C 04:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we are just fighting a lost cause. There will always be something that keeps him from reaching the list. Just sayin..Even if there was a book or a full blown episode on tv about him, something would be wrong about the source..Underwoodl06 (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, I think the sources we already have are enough, but I alone can't create consensus. However, you're wrong about the sources, no one would be able to refute it if there was a source that was entirely about him, longer than two paragraphs, and in a reputable newspaper or magazine. The issue with the current sources (which don't personally bother me) are that they are about the videos he's reviewed and aren't actually about Johnson himself. Silverseren^C 03:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. C.C. here is just creating excuses to keep RWJ off this list at this point. PokeHomsar (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• So I created a well-sourced article on Mr. Johnson, who I saw did not have an article, it is at Ray William Johnson (comedian). I don't think I realized the level of debate that exists about this, with a little effort I was able to compile a number of sources. He's received a fair amount of press from non-English newspapers, which flows out of non-English videos he reviews and brings great popularity to. Its not surprising that some editors will disagree with fervent youtube fans about when a certain youtube creator becomes sufficiently notable. It happened for lonelygirl15 in 2006 (deleted, recreated, kept in 2nd afd), and The Annoying Orange (bad first attempts deleted speedily, I created real sourced article), etc.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all Youtube Celebrities on the list are Notable (Relative to Wikipedia, but extremely Notable on Youtube)

Like Shay Carl does not have a Wikipedia article. He's a mega youtube star, but there's no article for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themastertree (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per a request on my talk page (and WP:AN). Consensus is very clear here in supporting #3 as the viable option. #4 is generally accepted as OK as well, but there is a strong (and I think consensus) argument that alone it is too restrictive a criteria. It's worth pointing out that these are the usual guidelines anyway. #1 and #2 have minimal support with arguments based only weakly on policy. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

---

What are the criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities?

Should all people on this list have a Wikipedia article? Options:

1. A high YouTube ranking, which means a high number of subscribers or a high number of channel views, is enough for inclusion on the list.
2. A high number of Google hits is enough for inclusion on this list.
3. Pursuant to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people, people who have received coverage in secondary reliable sources but are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article per the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (people) can be included on the list.
4. Only people who have Wikipedia articles and are notable per the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (people) can be included on the list.

Cunard (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

#2 isn't specific enough...they could have a large number of G hits that are all trivial. So large number of reliable hits. CTJF83 23:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading through the archives of this page, I've found that many editors (new and old) like to point to Google hits to support including non-notable people on the list. I have therefore included that as an option, though I agree with you that Google hits should not be used to determine who should be and who should not be included. Cunard (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think #4 primarily or 3 are good inclusion criteria. CTJF83 23:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with 3, lists often have people not notable enough for their own article, such as various "list of characters.." of TV shows. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Touché CTJF83 23:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Have a high number of views on YouTube(does not include scams that trick people into clicking on them), or have received coverage for being a YouTube personality. List articles are suppose to be complete. They don't just cover things that have their own Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia notability is only required for the article itself, not everything listed in it. And would something have a lot of Google hits but not have a greater number of YouTube hits? Don't see as how Google is an issue here. Dream Focus 23:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You are missing that Wikipedia follows things like WP:GNG not popularity of videos or search results numbers. CTJF83 23:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• I thought that "people who have received coverage in secondary reliable sources but are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article per the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (people) can be included on the list" was a fairly agreed upon standard, and that alone Google hits, video/channel views or subscriptions meant little. I was notified of this discussion as I closed the AfD. Fences&Windows 23:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Clearly number four (4) is the best inclusion criteria. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • No, why "clearly"? Plenty of lists of people include some entries that don't have Wikipedia articles. That decision would seem to deliberately exclude noting YouTubers who are highly popular and have media attention, simply out of some strange idea that those without articles don't "deserve" to be listed. Fences&Windows 00:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • IFF they are "highly popular and have media attention", they should be able to have articles that demonstrate satisfaction of WP:NOTE. IFF not, not. -- Cirt (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Lists are not meant to just include subjects that have Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, you're arguing for the deletion of most lists on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 01:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. 1 and #2 are relatively meaningless in this regard, for the reasons above. #3 could be ok, but I am not sure how it really differs from #4. If it just means that one passing mention in a magazine is enough, then I don't think so. But if it meant to be #4 lite, so that passing mentions in many independent (of the subject and each other) reliable sources or 1 or 2 substantial mentions could merit inclusion, I don't think I have a problem with that. Or a mention in an independent WP:RS that explicitly claims so-and-so is a YouTube celebrity, that would be even better. Rlendog (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm thinking it means that there would have to be a reliable source that focuses a significant amount on the subject. The entire source doesn't have to be about the subject, but at least a significant portion of it. Silverseren^C 01:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• #3 is clearly the best way to go with this. I see no reason not to follow the method of stand alone lists that have been followed for years anyways. Silverseren^C 01:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Also agree with your post just above this one. This is pretty much the criterion for this and similar pages and always has been, and I see no reason to change it. Especially not just to bow to peer pressure. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with #1 as long as the most stressed point is subscribers. In other words, every person in the top 10 subscribed in the world should be on the list. (I think everyone in the top 10 has over a million subscribers by now.) PokeHomsar (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please indicate why having a million subscribers, and no media coverage would indicate inclusion on this list? A person and their friends could create a bunch of dummy youtube accounts to add more subscribers and views to their videos. CTJF83 13:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Its highly likely as of 2011 that every person in the top 10 has sufficient news coverage (under #3) to be on the list. That was more debatable in 2006-07, when perhaps most notoriously, articles like lonelygirl15 were deleted despite high popularity. So if someone is in the top 10 now, I could see it being mentioned as confirmation of notability, but not sufficient by itself.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Highly likely, but not 100%. http://www.youtube.com/user/RayWilliamJohnson is the #2 subscribed of all time, and he is not listed on this page, and his page has been deleted several times and is creation protected. CTJF83 21:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Silverseren that #3 should be the default here. Maybe an exception will occur from time to time, but that framework should work. --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• For simpicity's sake, it should be 4. This is a list of people after all. Anything else can be covered in List of Internet phenomena. MickMacNee (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• As Escape Orbit says below, a list is meant to include people who don't have quite the notability to have a Wikipedia article, otherwise there is no point in having a list, you can just have a straight article on Youtube personalities. Silverseren^C 15:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not proposing an article called "Youtube personalities". I'm talking about a category, if there isn't one already. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that this was the discussion about what it is meant to include or not, not a confirmation of its current status, or a proposal to turn it into a straight article on Youtube personalities. And Escape Orbit's argument that #4 is 'pointless' is completely irrelevant, categories do not replace lists, certainly not when they contain more information that a category group ever could. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What factual cited material would be in the list that wouldn't be in the articles of the category? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

For a start, what's already here - the channel name, and the reason why they are a 'Youtube personality'. MickMacNee (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And re-reading your comment, just because it's in the categorised article, doesn't mean it cannot be in a list article, which is after all an article, not an index. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Are you saying "the channel name, and the reason why they are a 'Youtube personality'" wouldn't be in their articles?? And it's obvious that those who fulfil Option 3's requirements would include all those in Option 4. I just don't see the point of a list that just replicates what's already in the articles and category. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't say that at all. A list article can and often does list just blue linked people (especially in situations like this where nobody is ever going to agree on what amount of coverage justifies inclusion for the non-notable people also being listed). This is ultimately a list of people, not channels, or phenomena, or a hits ranking. But such a list can and usually does contain some of that overview information that is also in those subject articles, to augment the basic list of names, around it's purported purpose (to be about 'Youtube personalities'). It is that extra information that makes the list more useful to the reader than the basic category of 'Youtube personalities', which is why they are not treated as being mutually exclusive on Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Option 3.

1. Too arbitrary. What counts as a 'high ranking'? If I just fall outside the inclusion threshold, do I get to challenge the threshold?

2. Counting Google hits is notability by (desperate) original research.

4. Pointless. If they are enough notable enough to have an article, then create a category for 'YouTube Personalities' and there is no need for a list article.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Option 3. Same criteria used in other lists (e.g., Notable alumni, Notable natives, etc). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Option 3. Seems to be the best choice out of the four. Like above, it is used on similar lists so it should be here. Kyle1278 19:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Options 1 and 2 are totally out of the question, and option 4 is I think too restrictive. Option 3, applied with common sense, is the best one. Reyk _YO! 23:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• I think Option 3 is best, as long as we use a little common sense: It's OK for a list to include people who have some coverage in independent sources but may perhaps fall a little short of the notability threshold. Don't get carried away and make hundreds of redlinks though. bobrayner (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Option 3 seems like the emerging consensus. Better to have a consensus than to argue back and forth, adding and deleting entries based on which side is stubborn enough to stick around until the end. Going to the sources is always a good way to settle a conflict. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

*Registering my support of Option 3 a little late. An unnoted advantage is that the list will stay more stable even as YouTube personalities rise from mere popularity to true notability, which sometimes happens quickly. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 13:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record on occasion but I will reiterate my opinion here as well. No article gets a pass from wp:GNG. None, at all, ever, in any way. If an article does not have "[...] significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject[...]" as per GNG, then there can be no article. WP:N is one of the bedrocks upon which Wikipedia rests, without it, it would not be an exaggeration to say there would be no wikipedia as we know it (as the fledgling project would have been buried in a tide of cruft and vanity). Youtube page counts are not independent or significant coverage, google hits are not significant or reliable (they often are cluttered by near-misses, wikipedia mirrors and a host of other factors). HominidMachinae (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Common sense. We should list the top 10 YouTube artists. Maybe the top 20 or 40. Maybe past members of the top 10. We should list anyone with a WP article where the Youtubery is significant. We should list anyone who passes WP:GNG who is significantly tubular. And we should list anyone with extensive media or scientific coverage or otherwise demonstrably significant to the list(s). Rich Farmbrough, 18:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC).
  
• Common sense is good, as Rich says. We don't want the article to have hundreds of entries, that would be unwieldy, so a criteria that allowed that would be too broad. I would say something like #4 with (who are tubular) with some #3 folks allowed in, people for whom reliably-sourced material is a bit too thin for a full-fledged article. Herostratus (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Option 3 makes the most sense, and it's the most compliant with Wiki policy. Note that option 4 can apply too; if they're notable enough to have their own article, then list them here and link it back. elektrikSHOOS 17:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Option 3. Follow the guideline we already have; I see no compelling reason why the youtube list should be stray away from the guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do not remove Ray William Johnson

• Ray William Johnson should not be removed from this list. He now has an individual article where CSD was declined, replacing all prior (often poorly-written) versions of that article. If you wish to discuss whether he should be excluded from the list, please discuss here before acting unilaterally to develop consensus. Thanks!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you not read all the discussion on him? He shouldn't be on the list till a proper suitable article is found. The type of article that is wanted is not what is being added. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like people have been testing you, Mr. C.C. You only care about RWJ. At least one person has been added to the list with just his/her YouTube page as a source since you started your crusade. You apparently didn't notice. Since I like the person, I'm not gonna remove it myself. I want people to see your tunnel vision. PokeHomsar (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

CC, do not remove him again unless a consensus is developed to that effect on this talk page. This is your last warning, you little punk.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 09:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Basically you've disregarded the previous discussions on him. You are mad that the articles that you used to source are not suitable. I've stated what article is needed and yet nobody seems to be able to find it. We wouldn't use a "top YouTube video of the week" article for anybody else, than why him? Double standards are going to happen on this or any article. If you don't like it, than that's too bad. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I previously opposed his inclusion in this list but since this is currently on the Main page as DYK, it can be successfully argued that non-involved editors checked the article and found him sufficient for inclusion on the Main Page. If you want to make a case to remove him, you should first successfully argue to delete his article at WP:AFD. Currently it seems as if he fulfills the requirements of inclusion by having a stand-alone article. Regards SoWhy 21:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, SoWhy, for finally taking our side in this matter. Mr. C.C., for some reason, has a personal vendetta against RWJ that I can't explain for the life of me. PokeHomsar (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note, that I'm not taking sides and I have never done so. My previous objections to his inclusion were based in policy and so is my acceptance of it now. I still feel that RWJ's notability is questionable but I also know that an experienced user and two admins reviewed the DYK hook, all non-involved in any previous discussion here; as such, there is an argument to be made that he might be indeed notable and as such his notability is no longer something that can be discussed on this page. If anyone wishes to dispute this, WP:AFD is the way to do it (since a successful argument against his notability also removes the basis for an article on him). I just won't do it because I feel that I'm no longer able to neutrally assess RWJ's notability (no one who argued about his inclusion here is able to do so imho), especially after the aforementioned checks by truly neutral editors. Regards SoWhy 21:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Our argument was that RWJ was notable on YouTube, which being #2 gave him without a shadow of a doubt. Although both of you used the rules to justify leaving off the dude at #2 (and #1 by the end of this month,) we argued that this was a notability on YouTube list, not a notability in general list. Using YouTube to source it makes sense in the sense that this is "YouTube personalities" not "media personalities" or anything else. But I guess making sense is impossible in the face of bureaucracy. PokeHomsar (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• SoWhy, thanks for chiming in again, I think you've added a needed dose of collegiality.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 10:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)