Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, oversight, protect, ratelimit-exempt, rollback
20,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 142:
Line 142: + + + + +
→Request: re
Would you please check the page [[James Ritchey]] to see if there's anything problematic (in general, not just originality, since it's two sentences long)? If there's nothing, I guess we can keep it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:45, 17 January 2019 (EST)
Would you please check the page [[James Ritchey]] to see if there's anything problematic (in general, not just originality, since it's two sentences long)? If there's nothing, I guess we can keep it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:45, 17 January 2019 (EST)
:Well, he exists. It seems he's a small-time actor who has been in a few movies I've never heard of, and is barely active on YouTube. This does seem to be relatively original text...all two sentences of it.
:So on to the negative, I firstly find the wording "internet celebrity" rather questionable. I don't see anything suggesting that title. I could be missing something, but from what I'm seeing, he looks more like a wannabe celebrity. Each of his youtube videos has between 1K and 7K views. Assuming those views were not farmed, that still seems a ways away from the numbers a celebrity would have. He second most viewed video seems to be review of a water bottle....I didn't watch it to find out if it is sponsored.
:I suspect he is trying to make a name for himself, which slots this "article" into a suspicious category anyway.
:Bottom line, there is nothing blatantly wrong, but I see why you were questioning it. This smells fishy. I'd be included to nuke it for a lack of notability, but I'm okay with keeping it. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 18:31, 17 January 2019 (EST)