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 snow keep. Article was kept at AfD less than a month ago. No additional rationale has been raised to question that result. – czar 17:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksepticeye (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)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) Fiddle Faddle 13:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per what I said when this was AFD'ed not long ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JackSepticEye. Everymorning talk 14:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources in the previous AFD. Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SNOW Keep. The nominator apparently did not read the AfD discussion from one month ago. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reasoning in the last AfD. Anarchyte 08:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reasoning in the last AfD for this article. Kamran Mackey (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject meets WP:GNG and has a large following in his genre. The article could use some significant improvement, though. Scr★pIron^IV 17:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This WP:BLP article is continually in a poor state due to it being mistreated as a fanpage, with frequent vandalism and additions of unsourced or poorly sourced material, as is evidenced in the page history. [1] [2] With that said, the subject does appear to be notable according to the recent outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JackSepticEye. Poorly sourced claims attributed to YouTube and the like should be diminished in favor of coverage from the Irish Times, the Irish Examiner, and similarly reliable third party publications. regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2015 (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.