Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayden Scheim

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 of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayden Scheim

Very non-notable, with less than 200 non-Wikipedia Google hits. LGBT activist in Toronto who's done a few workshops at some conferenes and had a bio-piece done on some tv show. Judging from the edit history, the article seems to be some hybrid of an attack-page and a vanity-page made by his friends and aquantences there. Don't think this would be of interest to anyone other than perhaps a few dozen people in the LGBT Toronto scene, so hard to see how this could merit a Wikipedia article. Delete. Blackcats 05:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Story was documented on television news. Endomion 05:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • He was simply one of several people that was interviewed for a one-time show. That doesn't exactly qualify as extensive media coverage. His name gets even less Google hits than mine. I don't see how he meets notablility requirements. Blackcats 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In some cases, one story qualifies as extensive media coverage when the media is generally reticent to cover this sort of thing. Endomion 16:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean "reticent to cover" someone who's not very notable?... Blackcats 08:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I mean "reticent to cover" sexual minorities. Endomion 12:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting - I hadn't noticed such a reticence. I find the media loves sensational stuff about gays and lesbians (i.e. all the hooplah about the marriages last year in the states and in the uk now with elton john and all). And transexuality can be even more sensational for the media - particuarly female->male, which is less common. If media coverage of such things was really so unusual, then wouldn't LGBT websites around the world be talking about Ayden Scheim and how extraordinary it was that he got such media coverage? And wouldn't this result in hudreds if not thousands of google hits?... Blackcats 01:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per Endomion. Note. This is my view. There is no more to it that this. Requests to expand on it will be ignored, as there is nothing to expand upon. Jcuk 10:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Unique local activist. Seems to get lots of media attention- there could be more to his story -- JJay 11:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If he gets "lots of media attention," then why so few Google hits? Blackcats 08:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• I can't explain why google is such a poor tool. However, if you are interested, I could update the article to show the many newspaper articles that have featured Scheim along with his TV and radio appearances. -- JJay 20:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm a "unique local activist" too, and I've been interviewed by local print and broadcast media on a number of occasions over the past ten years or so - even had a personality profile done in a local paper. And I know a number of local activists here and in other towns who can say the same. But I don't think all that adds up to notability on the Wikipedia level. In a wiki about my town I probably would be deserving of at least brief mention (as would some of my friends), as would Ayden in a Toronto wiki. But neither of us are notable enough to have a Wikipedia bio. Blackcats 01:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Programs which air across the whole of Canada on a public broadcasting network are not "local media". And both programs have been aired outside of Canada as well. Bearcat 06:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you been featured in two documentaries shown on national TV? If so, please submit an article on yourself- we need the info. -- JJay 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The one TV show that I see she was featured on is Rough Cuts - a reletively minor CBC weekly program which doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article, and which gets a little over 10,000 Google hits. [1] Now the show is certainly certainly notable enough that it would deserve a Wikipedia article, but it's certainly a much less well known show than say Dateline NBC, which gets almost two million Google hits. [2] My point is that the show is not notable to the point where someone appearing on that show one week (in Scheim's case with two others) automatically becomes notable. I'm not even sure that someone who was featured one week on Dateline NBC as an example of some phenomenon they were discussion would automatically become notable, but they'd have a stronger case. Also, I don't see any good reason why the Google-test shouldn't apply here, as this person is not historic and is not from outside the Western World. It's really hard to see how a young Canadian activist would have less than 200 non-Wikipedia Google hits if he were notable. Another test I would apply is would anyone who had not met Ayden Scheim in person and did not live in his area be likely to be motivated to start a Wikipedia article on him? And I have yet to see any evidence that they would. And judging from the edit summaries at the article, it's pretty clear to me that it was written by people who know Ayden. Blackcats 04:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know Ayden, and I've been involved in editing it. Bearcat 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Look I'm not going to endlessly debate this. The guy was featured in two documentaries. Check the article- I added the references. "Class Queers" was shown in the States as well as on Canadian TV. I also don't care who wrote the article. -- JJay 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn bio. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting for more input. Blackcats 09:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete media are anythign but reticent to cover sexual minorities. Bloody Graham Norton is never off the box! This is a simple case of a minor local activist who was interviewed once on TV; my several dozen radio appearances (on BBC Radio 4) don't make me notable, and I get way more Google hits than this guy. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Have you had a documentary made about you as well? I really wish you would stop bragging about your unproven accomplishments and judge the articles based on their merits or do some research. -- JJay 21:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• I know that I am not important enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry, so one of my benchmarks for inclusion is someoen who's had more media exposure than I have, it's as simple as that. You can't verify my media appearances for the same reason I can't easily verify the media appearances of the subject: they are transient. Andy Warhol said that everyone is famous for 15 minutes - does that mean everybody should be in WP? The problem here is continuing verifiability, notability is just shorthand for describing someone who is likely to remain in the media spotlight for long enough to ensure that something other than a single current event is verifiable (like candidates for political office, most of whom lose, and many of those are never heard of again). Once the media lose interest (assuming they haven't already) then everything subsequent becomes completely unverifiable instead of only unverifiable by anyone not in the area. As far as I'm concerned we should wait at least a year before adding an article related to any single current event, to see what the perspective of history might be. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I reiterate: Have you been featured in two nationally televised documentaries? If not, I expect you will stop distorting Mr. Scheim's record and withdraw your comments above. I would also appreciate it if you stopped talking about your supposed media appearances. Your claims about google hits are not relevant unless you provide a link. If the hits relate to some blog you maintain then they will be discounted. Mr. Scheim is not a current event, he is an activist. There are newspaper references on him dating back four years. Futhermore, I do not judge any bio by the media's interest or lack thereof. If I did, we could immediately trash most of our bios on historical subjects as well as numerous academics etc. -- JJay 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Graham Norton hosting a celebrity gabfest is not the same thing as a news or documentary program actually reporting on the real day-to-day lives and issues of LGBT youth. His presence on the tube doesn't even remotely constitute "the media covering sexual minorities". Bearcat 05:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no actual evidence of notability.--nixie 14:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - NeoJustin 02:51, Devember 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Appeared in a CBC newsmagazine" doesn't cut it as a claim of notability, as far as I'm concerned. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• "Appeared in a CBC newsmagazine" might perhaps not cut it as a claim of notability, but as far as I'm concerned, the fact that it was one of the most controversial pieces to air on the show in at least the past few years does cut it. As does the fact that Meryn Cadell (a legitimately notable figure even independently of his transgender activism) was moved to publicly speak out against the fifth estate (which is even more astonishing when you keep in mind how prominent a role the CBC has had in Cadell's career.) And the fact that Becoming Ayden and Class Queers have both been shown internationally. For what it's worth, the Canadian magazine The ACTivist seems to think so, as well; this link clearly considers Scheim notable enough to be one of just three activists specifically named as past speakers at an annual social justice conference, alongside Jaggi Singh and a former chair of the Canadian Federation of Students. I'm willing to concede that this is a borderline case, but it falls on the keep side of my borderline. Granted that I live in Toronto, but I've never met Ayden personally, so there's most certainly not a personal bias seeping in here. Bearcat 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable as the subject of several film and television stories, and also for winning a local award for community activism which I've just added to the article. David | Talk 17:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. CBC is a national station and it was an important biography. I'd say weak keep if it was only a simple appearance on the news, but it spurred on discussion. User:Ianmilligan1 20:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - French Tourist 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I'd say non-notable. —BorgHunter (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't understand why it is a problem keeping articles like these. I take "non-notable" to mean "not notable AT ALL". Certainly this person is notable. I think people should be saying "Not notable enough". Otherwise, it can sound like the things of note that a person does are not important. I will assume good faith here and assume that this is not the intent of the people saying "non-notable". Personally, I think Wikipedia should have many thousand small articles about the mildly notable people of the world. Some of these people will become more notable, in which case we can say it was in Wikipedia first. Others will drift off into obscurity. In future decades a small handful of people digging for information about obscure mildly notable people will find a paragraph or two about them here on Wikipedia. Won't they think highly of us. -- Samuel Wantman 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you. That was beautifully put. -- JJay 02:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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.