Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DMurawski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete (even discounting my own opinion, see below). NawlinWiki (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DMurawski

DMurawski (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Subject does not appear to be notable. Just another YouTube user. Paradoxsociety 07:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Delete per nom as non-notable YouTube vblogger --Deadly∀ssassin 07:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not delete, as he is a notable YouTube vblogger. He has been featured in higher ranking member's videos many times, and 750,000 views do not lie. Wikipedia states anything with hundreds of thousands of views is worth noting in the site. Therefore, it is validated. To have some person like Deadly Assassin delete the article based on their OPINION that the article is not valid... is just not what wikipedia stands for. The statistics do not lie. He is worth noting, as not many YouTube users have earned those stats on their own without being featured. 750,000 views, 100,000 page clicks, & 2,400 fans = not even close to being not worth noting. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC) — 71.193.87.216 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Do you have any WP:reliable, published sources independant of the blogger himself and of Youtube, i.e. news reports, articles, or books describing him and his vblog? If not, the article will have to be deleted as the information in the article cannot be independantly verified as accurate and correct, and as not meeting the WP:Verifiability core policy, and possibly not meeting the WP:No original research or WP:Neutral point of view core policies. -- saberwyn 08:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. You may want to take a look at WP:BIGNUMBER, which says, essentially, that having a large number of anything isn't a valid source of notability. AnturiaethwrTalk 12:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Of course it's my opinion, I'm not sure whose opinion you think users should be putting forward. AfD discussions are there for editors in the Wikipedia community to come to consensus on whether an article should be deleted/redirected/etc based upon Wikipedia policy. --Deadly∀ssassin 19:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete He may have many YouTube views but there are no reliable and independent sources to back up claims, and such it fails WP:N notability policy.  Atyndall93 | talk  09:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable per WP policy. JuJube (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Could have been speedied. Vanity article for a YouTube user. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just delete it.--Berig (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable article. Macy (Review me!) 14:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I can find some proof for the 750,000 views. Plus, I would like to note -- it's easy to be a pointless Wikipedian that doesn't actual consider an article before saying DELETE, but it is noble to actually consider one. I'm not even a member and I feel more fair, which I find sad. What is the point of deleting an article that fans of the subject enjoy reading? It isn't even poorly written. Clue me in? 71.193.87.216 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Update - I have found that DMurawski has 800,000 views, not 700,000. Nearly one million views and climbing is pretty noteworthy. That's a lot of eyeballs... once I put the reference up, you might have to succumb and take it off Deletion Debate. There's no Wikipedia rule stating something with 800,000 clicks is not noteworthy, and if so, please cite it. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)— 71.193.87.216 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment Please read Anturiaethwr's comment above and read WP:BIGNUMBER to understand why this line of argument is likely not to help you. --Deadly∀ssassin 20:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Article Validated I, the person the article is about, have validated it. I posted an article on my official blog, with photo evidence of both my 800,000 video views and 100,000 channel views. If you could be so kind as to click references 1 & 2 on the article, you will see it no longer is not sourced. As to the request of Saberwyn, I can and will find articles other have written about me. I did NOT write this article about myself, but I can and will validate it, because it rightfully can be validated. Dmurawski (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Notice The notice that was put up is flattering, but there will be no fanboys and girls debating on this if I can help it. With the sources I presented, whoever created this article is now validated in doing so. If there are sources to back the statistics and noteworthiness, there should be no debate any longer. As well, the notice says merit is judged... I urge whoever decides on the deletion: check the article, because all the statistics are backed up, and it is proven valid. Dmurawski (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Neither of those references are independent, and neither of them assert the notability behind the number, even if it is a big one. WilliamH (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Per WP:BIGNUMBER. View counts are notoriously unreliable and open to manipulation too. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete One of many non-notable people who posts videos on Youtube. Vanity article that leaves me wondering, "Who cares?" Equally notable for being a Wikipedia vandal (see here and here). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Response Leaves me wondering "do you have a life? or at least some sources to back your claims?" Tell me how someone with success is non-noteworthy. Besides that, the basic fact remains that Derek Murawski is a YouTube partner, which is a very hard program to enter. When YouTube selects you to make money off your content, you obviously have some power on the site. You may think I'm ignorant, but obviously you do not see how pathetic it appears to others when you have power to say "delete -- not noteworthy"... despite your total lack of research, other than your sickening knowledge of some rules written by decrepit nerds with no lives. Good day, sir. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Great minds think alike. I wondered about the same thing which is why I have opened a RFCU case. It will be interesting to see the results. --Deadly∀ssassin 07:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh Dear.: Maybe you should contact the author of the article before you jump to suspicion. I love how all you people pride yourself on your understanding of Wikipedia rules. Go play with your kids for once... if you have any. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC) — 71.193.87.216 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Actually, I think it's worth valuing an understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, because with it comes the ability to assert your point legitimately, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks on participants in the discussion. It seems reasonably clear that even though the subject has had many views, the growing consensus is that there are no sources which offer independent commentary on why the subject is notable. My advice is if you have them, add them, but at no point will personal attacks advance your position. WilliamH (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Star Tribune Interview The Minneapolis Star Tribune will be doing an article on me soon, so therefore I am noteworthy enough to be featured in a respected paper. Once the interview is up, this article will be backed by an outside source, and therefore validated. I urge the final decider not to delete the page someone created of me, due to this fact. For now, the sources hold true -- the photographical evidence of source #1 was provided by me, and clearly shows that the 800,000 views are real. I don't own a robot refresh program, so the notion that they were attained with fraud is preposterous.

Comment. I'm not entirely sure you are clear on the "backing up" bit. Nobody disputes that hundreds of thousands of people have seen your channel, but this doesn't constitute notability, for the same reason that the hundreds of thousands of people who have seen my grandmother's front garden having driven past it doesn't warrant an article here, because no independent sources have asserted notability. Apologies if you were already clear on this but it's clear some participants weren't. When will the MST be doing that article on you? Wikipedia articles do not exist on the basis that notability might be asserted at a later date, per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WilliamH (talk)
Response They are interviewing me tomorrow afternoon Dmurawski (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Response to response: If that happens (and taking the word of a Wikipedia vandal for crystal ball information is sketchy at best), it wouldn't change the fact that you are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Posting videos on Youtube just isn't something that matters. A case can be made for people like Chris Crocker who were the subject of many news stories, but one possible upcoming news story isn't enough. Heck, I've been the subject of multiple news stories in national papers. I wouldn't claim to be sufficiently notable to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Rebuttle But do you have a worldwide audience, and fans that are interested in such an article? Obviously if one has found it and is defending it, and one created it... he has fans 71.193.87.216 (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Nobody disputes that he has many fans, but the individual hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. We're not claiming that he'll never be, but if there is nothing to assert notability then there is no grounds for the article. WilliamH (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow Please ignore this comment, it is crude and should not be used to make assumptions on this debate. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Major Improvement Added independent source article, from another website, as source # one. This answers almost all of the claims against the article's notability -- nearly all of these comments have said "add an external source, or it will be deleted." Not only have I found this source, LG15.com, but I will be searching more later. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. "...self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable" as sources, according to WP:SPS (emphasis mine). (And really, there's an entire wiki devoted to lonelygirl15? What is the world coming to?) 199.8.47.12 (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Rebuttle It is a Wiki maintained by the official creators of the very popular LG15 franchise. As for its credibility, Dmurawski has never edited it (check the history), so it's not biased or conflicting in interest. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete and Salt Likely a vanity page and strong possibility of recreation. Artichoke2020 (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable, even by standards of Youtube self-promotion, no reliable secondary sources. Debate is not helped by keep votes and nasty comments by subject of article and his obvious sock-puppets (for example, 71.193.87.216 has made no edits other than related to subject, including this self-promotion). Camillus 14:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Obvious? What's obvious is that I'm a fan, which I have said many times before. When I was sent the DMurawski article, I was excited and enthralled to read it -- because I'm a fan. A fan. Not a puppet. The reason I have been editing only DMurawski is because I came on here for DMurawski's article. I have been watching and communicating with him on YouTube since 2007, so therefore I know many things about him. In his video, Spring Break, he wears a letter jacket from "Blaine" and talks about living in Minnesota... put two and two together... I'm not a puppet, I just have a logical mind. Sorry. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Shame you haven't managed to meet him in person since you live in the same town[1]. --Deadly∀ssassin 06:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh dear lord. Shoot me for living in Minnesota... still haven't met him. I'm not fake, period. You people can label me all you want as a "sockpuppet", my truth is my own. I'm totally unphased by these developments. Bring them on. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, not just the same state, you live in the same small town as Derek! You guys really should meet up!
May 3 User:Dmurawski uploads image. 18 mins later Jorotayabl creates article, with the image - like, how did he know??? 2 minutes later 71.193.87.216 edits article. 14 mins later DMurawski comments that a fan of his created article, nothing to do with him (except there's the image...)
Nothing for 15 hours, then DM edits article. 13 minutes later 71.193.87.216 edits article.
Derek thanks his fans on uber site for defending him - actually, make that fan (singular), as 71.193.87.216 is the only one defending article.
Perhaps its the threat at the top of the page, quit with the personal attacks, so immature. Perhaps the author of the article searched the media area for DMurawski? Not everything's as shady as you think. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Derek, the point of WP:AUTO on wikipedia is that if you're notable, someone else will create/edit your article. One day you'll be in your mansion and you can all laugh at us...but till then, give it a rest ;) Camillus 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not... Derek... 71.193.87.216 (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Just looked again and two paragraphs were entirely unsourced except for one unrelated link, so per WP:BLP they had to be removed immediately. Of course, in the event the subject of the article turns out to be notable and references can be found, I'm sure it can be added again. Artichoke2020 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Still looking for the sources to verify how he is notable. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Not hard enough, I wager, for the source has been up since I added it yesterday... 71.193.87.216 (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking, but all I see is a link to an open wiki, which doesn't meet the Wikipedia criteria for a reliable source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Since deletion is on the cards, I also suggest this page be salted, as I anticipate a strong possibility of it being recreated. WilliamH (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2008 (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.