Talk:Renetto
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before even considering re-nomination:
|
This man has thousands of subscribers and millions of views. Why isn't he AT LEAST allowed a short page?
Because he is not socially relevant.
- Gonna let a user take another whack at this. I know it's a failed AfD, but if he can make this into something worthwhile, why not? Anyway, we shall see. :) - Lucky 6.9 03:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm the one who nominated this for deletion about three months ago, and I'm still not sure I see notability in Renetto. The biggest case for inclusion I can see is the following guideline from WP:BIO: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" However, the link to the Chicago Tribune doesn't work, and he isn't quite the primary subject of The Daily Reel article. I hate to be a WP:BIO pedant, and I do enjoy watching his videos, but I still don't think he's reached the notability of YouTubers like geriatric1927 and Brooke Brodack. Nufy8 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I will take out the link to the Chicago Tribune if it continues to fail. I should think they are shuffling their pages in same way as they usealy keep their articles. Also he has features in many news articles. True, he is not famous, but notable, and will feature yet again in more articles. The biggest point is the fact that YouTube itself is a media body, so any of his videos which they let him upload on their site belongs to them, and is in a sence published by them. Chavatshimshon 23:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- If you were to consider YouTube a media publisher, then it isn't really independent of the person, as is suggested. Also, considering that anyone can upload a video to YouTube, pretty much anyone could be considered notable by those terms. Nufy8 04:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I consider YouTube a media body assuming different roles. Uploading videos that after a while become a hit with thousands of people, is the doing of the person, but 'through' YouTube and legaly all the uploads belong to and are approved for display by YouTube. Ineed anyone can upload a video, and it just may be we will have hell of a lot of more articles to write up, depending on how well they do. Chavatshimshon 01:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- But at what point does a YouTuber become notable? Is it a certain amount of profile views? A certain amount of video views? A certain amount of subscribers? Is someone who averages 10,000 views per video notable while someone who averages 5,000 views per video not? Nufy8 20:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- You're making very good points. I'd be interested in hearing your take on deciding where the line is drawn. The outcome here is that a line must be drawn. But this would be hard since YouTube should be the ones to do that, nevertheless they dont have a top ten, nor will they since it would be totaly be against what they stand for. YouTube promotes self promotion, and anyone can do it, their platform is a see saw one, so some of their successful broudcasters will go up and in all thei scales, (most viewed, subscribed, commented etc). My take is that everyone on the first page of most subscribed channels have a wiki article. YouTube will become bigger and bigger and some channels will drop to the second page yet receive more views then the current top subscribed channel. We can deal with that then. Chavatshimshon 01:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Though YouTube's popularity might make its most prominent users more notable than those of your average online community, I don't know if this is a universal thought in all of Wikipedia. I'm thinking of running it through AfD again to get other opinions now that Renetto's popularity and possible notability have increased since before. Nufy8 01:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- You're making very good points. I'd be interested in hearing your take on deciding where the line is drawn. The outcome here is that a line must be drawn. But this would be hard since YouTube should be the ones to do that, nevertheless they dont have a top ten, nor will they since it would be totaly be against what they stand for. YouTube promotes self promotion, and anyone can do it, their platform is a see saw one, so some of their successful broudcasters will go up and in all thei scales, (most viewed, subscribed, commented etc). My take is that everyone on the first page of most subscribed channels have a wiki article. YouTube will become bigger and bigger and some channels will drop to the second page yet receive more views then the current top subscribed channel. We can deal with that then. Chavatshimshon 01:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- But at what point does a YouTuber become notable? Is it a certain amount of profile views? A certain amount of video views? A certain amount of subscribers? Is someone who averages 10,000 views per video notable while someone who averages 5,000 views per video not? Nufy8 20:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I consider YouTube a media body assuming different roles. Uploading videos that after a while become a hit with thousands of people, is the doing of the person, but 'through' YouTube and legaly all the uploads belong to and are approved for display by YouTube. Ineed anyone can upload a video, and it just may be we will have hell of a lot of more articles to write up, depending on how well they do. Chavatshimshon 01:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you were to consider YouTube a media publisher, then it isn't really independent of the person, as is suggested. Also, considering that anyone can upload a video to YouTube, pretty much anyone could be considered notable by those terms. Nufy8 04:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Meanwhile, can it at least be labelled as biased?
(I agree with this above statement, it is a biased "article")
Wish I knew how to label it that; I don't usually edit stuff but this is clearly a load of rubbish.
- if we do keep the page, can we at least get rid of the bits saying he has a nasal voice, and the thing about the laugher. i don't see that it has any encyclopedic use, and is likely to be considered offensive to his fans. Djchallis 23:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- i took out the nasal voice/laughter pieces for the above reason. feel free to object though, if you think they should still be there. Djchallis 16:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep this page. I was curious about some info on the renetto character and searched on wikipedia to find out more. it helped. Karatenerd 06:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources and notability guidelines
Someone who drinks Cokes and eats Mentos and then belches may be an internet phenomenon, but may lack staying power, like traditional media "celebrities" who are best known for ---being well known. The one Chicago Tribune story would be a good one as a start toward "multiple independent and reliable sources." The fact that the click link went dead is not a problem: just cite it without the link, to the paper, date, story title and page number if known. Print references are fine. For internet phenomena, how about a guideline so it is not a battle from first principles everytime someone wants to have an article about something they saw on the internet? There are ongoing projects at WP:MALL and WP:CHURCH to try and come up with such guidelines for things which some do not feel fall into the usual Wikipedia guidelines for deciding notablilty. Then anyone could cite it as an objective basis for decision in deletion debates, without just citing their personal opinion. Maybe WP:internet. Edison 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not a Renetto "fan". Actually he annoys me and I don't regularly watch his stupid videos. But I think it's a bit ridiculous to not have comprehensive Wikipedia entries on him and other Youtube celebrities, because that's what I and many others count on Wikipedia FOR. If it's not a reliable source of good information on Internet celebrities as they come and go, what's the point of having an Internet-based, fluid, fluctuating encyclopedia to begin with? It sounds to me like this debate is much more about whether certain people think he is a "deserving" celebrity because of the antics he used to become popularity, as opposed to an honest debate about whether he is in fact "notable." He is clearly notable. I guarantee that more Americans know about Renetto and are curious about him (e.g., why I decided to look him up here and was disappointed), than, say, the President of Guatemala. It was a surprising disappointment to come here and find barely a few lines written about him. Cbreitel 16:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
