Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Rex

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Jimmy Rex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Total promo nonsense article, sourced to passing mentions with nothing meaningful in the way of actual coverage - and the only mentions of Rex are again, in passing, if even that. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dont label an article that I spent my time and effort working on nonsense. Talk to me with respect. Cokeandbread (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I was asked to review this article earlier. I tagged it as relying too heavily on primary sources. It seems like with how long this person has been around and the circles they trade in it would be easy for him to be notable by some metric, but his projects and interviews have no independent coverage and there's little to nothing I could find that discusses him in an impartial way. Reconrabbit 20:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. Cokeandbread (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Utah. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created the page so let me explain why. I will start like this.

In the early days of Instagram verification, before Instagram gave out verification, they didnt know how to select who was worthy of being verified and why those people were worthy and others were not. So they found a solution. One of the criteria they used to determine if someone was notable to be verified was to check out the number of DMs said person from other verified accounts. Getting DMs from verified accounts meant you were notable too. E.g an obscure music producer getting DMs from different big musicians meant he was notable even though he wasnt famous. Afterall some notable people work behind the scenes. Jimmy Rex's Show have had some great people on the podcast. In Wikipedia we call those "associates". Lots of people who have Wikipedia articles have been guests at his show. A non notable podcaster wont pull notable guests to his podcast.

There is something else I should point out. There was a debate about Giannis Antetokounmpo, and how his opening sentence should be worded. The bone of contention was whether he should be labeled as a Greek or a Nigerian-Greek. What put that argument to rest was a video from YouTube. In the video he said that he represents both Nigeria and Greece. These are the scenarios when Youtube videos can be employed. In Jimmy Rex's case, these notable guests are talking by themselves for themselves. You watch the video and see them. It is verifiable. When you say primary source, do you know that you mean that the words are coming from Jimmy Rex's mouth? And in this case, are they? Cokeandbread (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what WP:SOURCING is, because I'm not going to explain it to you. It details the different types and the fact that your article is a raging advertisement sourced to blackhat SEO doesn't help. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:YOUTUBE-EL.

And about SEO blackhatting, you are simply projecting, because I never had the intention for such. Cokeandbread (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how I am projecting? What does that mean? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some signs that you might be projecting onto me:

• You make assumptions about my intentions. With no good faith.

• You accuse me of doing something that you yourself might be guilty of.

• You seem overly sensitive to my words or actions, as if you’re taking them personally. Cokeandbread (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Define projecting. Cause this isn't it. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have time for this. Cokeandbread (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing in-depth independent coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. A ref-bombed promo article, most likely COI/paid editing. Edwardx (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  When I created the article, I wrote a sub section about his controversy and I was asked to remove it because it was negative. Now, the article seems like a promo because it is too nice? Okay.

  Also Read WP:YOUTUBE-EL. Cokeandbread (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I recommended that the controversy section be removed because controversy sections are generally a poor idea, especially on a biography of a living person. Vice News was not a strong enough source to justify it. Reconrabbit 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Every single source is either a passing mention, not independent of the subject, or about a different subject entirely (referring to one of his guests). Plus, there is WP:TRIVIA being used to puff up the citations list: Guatemala is one of his favorite travel destinations? An NBA star crashed one of his parties? Who TF cares. Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Wikipedia article with minimal citations but clear notability. Deletion of notable Wikipedia pages because of fewer citations can set a dangerous precedent. Gracefoundme (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks to me like there are plenty of citations, but many of them are weak in terms of reliability and are not independent of Jimmy Rex. Reconrabbit 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright. Cokeandbread (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gracefoundme: what do you mean "minimal citations but clear notability"? How is notability met if not via WP:GNG? GNG doesn't require a lot of sources of course but it does require enough depth. What are these sources to establish the level of coverage needed for GNG? Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. From what I see I believe the Wikipedia article is notable. The creating editor seems naive so I think it is creator issue, not a notability issue. Keep and keep improving. Wallclockticking (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I am learning. Cokeandbread (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the article currently is written. I'm of the opinion that controversy often makes a person notable. Recent examples of articles that I've saved because of bad reviews or controversy include Topaz (novel) and The Legend That Was Earth. Another article is Sangre Grande Regional Complex, often described as a white elephant. Many a bad broadcaster has achieved notability by having outrageous guests. I'm glad to change my !vote if critiques are added back in. Bearian (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good day Bearian. Following your instructions, I added his critiques. I dont know if it is sufficient to change your mind though. Cokeandbread (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello sir Cokeandbread (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because many influential podcasters are notable despite limited traditional media coverage. The reason why is because podcast is the new media and traditional citations don't yet know how to do justice to podcasters' influence. Their reach, engagement, and cultural relevance often exceed those of traditionally cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdhoul 138 (talk • contribs) time, day month year (UTC)
• Delete as written as it's clearly promotional, but I'm also not sure a neutral article is possible based on the available sources. SportingFlyer T·C 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article is consistent with other Wikipedia podcasting WP:POD articles from what I see. Amaekuma (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a WP:WHATABOUTX argument, not a valid rationale. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as in its current state, the article covers his achievements and controversies, giving a balanced view that fits Wikipedia’s standards. Miss Dike 16:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "his achievements and controversies" does not contribute to any notability standard. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google search show this article has independent secondary reliable source with a significant coverage. Thus, it has pass GNG. Again, [1], [2], [3] and [4] are enough to establish notability. 102.91.104.221 (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  USA Today is not about this individual, he's only mentioned and has a quote. The other sources aren't RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A WP:REFBOMB of primary source Q&As, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, press releases, affiliated sources (eg official bios), student media, etc. Not a single source is WP:SIGCOV in an independent, secondary, reliable source. Total WP:GNG/WP:NBIO failure and highly promotional as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Almost evenly divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and those advocating Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable podcast person. There are no articles in RS about this individual; what's used in the article are trivial mentions or non-RS. I can't find any we can use either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closer: The discussion may at present look evenly divided, but the "keep" !votes are either not policy based or offer sources that other !voters have rebutted. It is also unusual that this particular discussion has attracted so many "keep" !votes from accounts that are participating in AfD for either the first (Gracefoundme, Miss Dike and obviously the IP) or second (Wallclockticking, Abdhoul 138) time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You create articles with 7 references or less. Even if I want to learn how to create articles, it will not be from you. Rest. Cokeandbread (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All sources seem either unreliable or non-substantial. I only saw one source that could be deemed as establishing GNG, but until we see more, this is most appropriately deleted. Madeleine (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Cokeandbread (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to stop with the WP:BLUDGEON. It does not help your case in any way. Madeleine (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very civil and contributing to Wikipedia to make a great encyclopedia, not trying to WP:SATISFY you. Cokeandbread (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And just how is responding to every Delete vote forming a consensus? Madeleine (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references are either passing mentions, written by Jimmy Rex or interviews with him. There doesn't seem to be any independent sources for him. Fails WP:GNG. One of the references wouldn't open for me but that's not uncommon with American sites when accessing them from the UK. Knitsey (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article on Jimmy Rex should be kept because Jimmy Rex is notable in multiple fields as a podcast host and the producer of 20th Century Fox movie, Once I Was a Beehive. NOTE: this is an unsigned post from Cokeandbread, who has has already voted above. Edwardx (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the subject meets notability standards. The article provides key information and serves as a basis for further development. Pruddyyyy (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  19 edits. Joined 20 December. Hmm. Edwardx (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And the edits that I looked at were minor wording ("i.e. from [[subtropical or tropical moist lowland forest]] to [[subtropical or tropical moist lowland forest|subtropical or tropical moist lowland forests]]) which look to me like an attempt to build up some edit stats. Has anyone looked for WP:SOCK evidence? The "keep" responses here have some characteristics in common, IMO. Lamona (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, note that there is an ongoing SPI for all keep !votes so far in here.YuniToumei (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have been called a COI editor, a paid editor, a sock, a nonsense editor and all these bad names just because I decided to create an article. I have been on Wikipedia for 2 months and I have been called more bad names and accused of More insulting allegations within that time than I have been faced in years of my real life. I'm starting to think it isnt worth it. Cokeandbread (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Author of the page in question has been indeffed on grounds of WP:NOTHERE and utter disreputability, including a possible COI. Borgenland (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this whole article frankly reads like a bad trivia section.Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No source meets the combined criteria of reliable, secondary, and in-depth so the subject fails WP:GNG. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]