Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donnie Davies (3rd nomination)

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 Keep-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donnie Davies (3rd nomination)

Donnie Davies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Speedy-deleted twice, but the original closer agreed to give it a full five-day run at AfD. Everybody's heard of him, now the question is: are there reliable sources? Procedural nomination, I profess opinionlessness. ~ trialsanderrors 08:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many sources now that verify the notability of Donnie Davies as a topic. A quick Google search of him turns up over 220,000 hits[1] and a search of his name and song turns up 22,000 hits[2]. Among the articles that acknowledge him as a spoof phenomenon are Spin[3] and The Washington Blade[4]. Other articles address his ideas (whether or not it is a fictitious persona) such as Philadelphia Weekly[5] or Cinema Blade[6]. It is also speculated that he is Joey Oglesby of the Chicken & Pickle Guys by Dan Savage in his blog with the Stranger, Slog[7]. The political content of this controversy has also attracted the attention of activists such as Heartstrong[8] and a petition has been started online for content removal from free sites[9].

In addition to the topic’s existence as an internet spoof, with evidence of becoming widely known, it exemplifies viral marketing but does not constitute spam per WP:Spam as the article itself is not an advertisement. The persona's notability is spread through the use of inflammatory content. The vast majority of the results of a Google search are blogs or forum chats. While they are not reliable sources, they are focal points of web-based interaction, and so a method of guerrilla marketing. As a viral marketing campaign, it is unique because its core communication is reliant on a pivotal point of a religious and political controversy; that is the religious contention that homosexuality is wrong. This is the root of its spread through the blogosphere as well as why the controversy over his actuality is so popular and its gain of cultural so important—particularly for people identifying with a sexually different culture. It is also why it is so culturally significant in its affect.

Advertising campaigns such as Get a Mac have their own articles regardless of the content being true or false. Guerrilla campaigns such as the 2007 Boston Mooninite Scare has been covered by Wikipedia and journalists even though coverage acts as more publicity. Personal campaigns popularized by web dissemination are also Wiki articles such as Lonelygirl15. Wikipedia covers the mentioned topics because of their cultural significance through our measure of notability that is dependent on verification. The notability of Donnie Davies is verified through multiple sources. Those named articles about advertisement pieces do not constitute spam as they are not advertisements, but explanations.

If the article were to follow the guidelines as stipulated by the Wiki Amnesia Test, would be about this topic as a controversy and the effect of it as a controversy. Understandably it does not meet the guidelines of a wiki biography, but since that isn't the intention then the point is moot. No different from articles like bigfoot or UFOs, it does not seek to establish the existence, but explain the growing topic. The only difference is its youth. Yes, the topics of bigfoot and UFOs are well-established and certainly have countless sources that address their cultural significance, but at the speed of which Donnie Davies as a topic is growing, it seems arbitrary to use its short-life as an argument against it.

To summarize: the article deserves a place because it has accumulated controversy over a heatedly debated religious and political conflict and utilizes it as an advertising campaign. It is not a biographical article, but an account of a campaign that is garnering cultural significance because it borrows from such a heated topic. It is not spam because the article addresses a variety of issues and does not seek to solely promote the persona. There are also multiple reputable sources that address the above reasons. --SquatGoblin

delete-by the article's own admission, unheard of until a week ago. Chris 08:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How does this pertain to deletion in this case? If it never achieved notability, I would agree. But it seems that standard has been met. Gerta 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of coverage by third-party sources; most of the external links are to his own webpages. Walton monarchist89 11:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - sufficient third-party sources have now been added since I made this comment. Adequate evidence of notability. Walton monarchist89 17:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - looks more like self advertising --DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 11:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Looks a lot better now. DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 01:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Donnie Davies as an actual person with an intended message is a moot point and so is whether or not his article meets the Wiki biography requirements. He is quickly growing in notability largely as an internet spoof and most of that newfound public interest is the argument surrounding whether or not he exists or if it's a gimmicked persona. --SquatGoblin 14:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete does not seem to have been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how the multiple sources cited are trivial such as [Spin or The Washington Blade.--SquatGoblin 14:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, conditional on updating the current article to reflect the new sources listed by SquatGoblin. Disclosure: I posted the current version. It was speedy deleted, and on review I was inclined to agree the sourcing was marginal and largeley circular. Given the coverage by several non-trivial sources in the interim, the article now appears to pass WP:N and WP:V if properly amended. The article should not (and does not) state conclusively whether this is a hoax (an unverifiable claim), but shoud discuss the (verifiable) controversy and provide the appropriate references. Without those additional, external sources, the article is susceptible to the criticisms in other votes above regarding sources. Gerta 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

N.B. Edits to the article (by another editor) reflect the additional sources. I would encourage others to check the updated sourcing in making a determination. Gerta 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete basically the same reasons as the original AfD. This really seems like a hoax or at best a piece of viral marketing, and in neither case should Wikipedia play a part in spreading it. Strong delete at least until there's some hard facts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

While it may be a hoax or simply a viral marketing campaign is part of a larger picture. The article isn't simply spreading the campaign or hoax but plays a part in assembling what composes it. There are many articles on Wikipedia that cover influential advertising campaigns. This one in particular is poignant because its core vessel for communication is dependent on a controversial religious and political issues (as self-evident by the song title "God Hates Fags"). I'm not sure I understand your difference of opinion. There are reliable sources (sources that have their own Wiki articles as journalists) that address this as a controversy. Please clarify where you need specific facts. --SquatGoblin 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's almost certainly a hoax, even if that can't be verified. But if it's a notable and verifiable phenomenon (regardless of whether claims of his identity are verifiable), how does this satisfy deletion criteria? Perhaps this is belaboring a point already mentioned, but wikipedia has plenty of articles where the "truth" cannot be determined and which few would suggest deleting (e.g. paranormal phenomena). Gerta 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete Discount all votes that refuse to acknowledge that this phenomenon has appeared in third-party newspapers. Voters who refuse to actually read the sources should not be counted. Wjhonson 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is yet another newspaper article in the New York Blade Wjhonson 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually the same as the Washington Blade article. Nonetheless, as mentioned above, there are in fact multiple, distinct sources. Gerta 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete There is coverage by multiple non-trivial third-party sources. Its status as a hoax is addressed within the article, and, like Bigfoot, is in fact one of the things that makes it relevant enough to include in Wikipedia. Mattymatt 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It's rather curious that the only "keep" arguments are coming from recently-created low edit count users and users who think that "undelete" is an appropriate vote at AfD. :) A Train ^{take the} 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well. Nobody pointed that out to me earlier! ha! --SquatGoblin 20:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, error fixed. Perhaps we could address the content of the discussion instead of putting down new users. -- Gerta 20:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think A Train's point was made in good humor at least, but I have to say that Wjhonson seems to have a good history of editting with a resilient barnstar no less! --SquatGoblin 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep If this figure is controversial enough that his videos can get censored from both youtube and myspace, then it is imperative that there be an article about him.--ScWizard 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep if for no other reason than to have information for people who want to learn about what types of videos get banned by YouTube.
• Strong keep it is discussed on many sites, such as [10] not just those owned by him. If the problem is whether it's a 'biographical' article, rename the article "Donnie Davies controversy" to get around that. "Donnie" hints at more to come, so maybe we'll find out later if he's real or not, or what whoever-it-is is trying to do.Merkinsmum 21:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a well-known Internet phenom covered with eight citations. To try to distinguish away all the citations will do violence to WP:RS.-- danntm ^T _C 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He's at least as 'relevant' as Jonathan Sharkey or Frank Chu. --Apeloverage 04:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep as I think it is important that people have an opportunity to contribute their opposition to the views expressed.

• Delete, established as viral marketing, so the article is WP:SPAM. Joel Oglesby can list Wikipedia alongside YouTube and Google; that's the consolation prize for spamming, I guess. — coelacan talk — 10:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Unlike criticisms of notability of verifiability, which I can't see in light of the references provided, WP:SPAM seems it could have some teeth here. I don't think Davies is "established as viral marketing," as it's not yet clear what he's promoting -- there's still lingering controversy over whether he's for real. (Though I agree he's a hoax, I don't think that's an objective conclusion.) But WP:SPAM does mention "public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual," and this could fit the bill. I'm sticking with my keep vote for now, since I feel that Davies has generated enough controversy to warrant an entry despite his intentions, and inclusion seems in keeping with the spirit of the notability policy. But I think the spam consideration warrants discussion. Gerta 17:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Based on WP:Spam, it sounds like the article itself has to be a piece of advertisement, but this article critiques its method of campaign and its effects. More importantly, it discusses it as a hoax and rather than promote it as a hoax. Does the article read like an advertisement to you? YouTube and Google didn't remove the video for being spam by the way, it was removed by the request of a petition from people offended by the video. --SquatGoblin 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that WP:Spam seems more concerned with spammy articles rather than articles about spam. So I think the article holds up, but maybe others will chime in here? ... Gerta 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep FREEDOM OF SPEECH, no real harm done. People should leave it. Controversy is no reason to delete an informative page. What about all the Mom's wondering who their kids are talking about, and they want to use Wiki as their trusted resorce to find out?!!!!--70.171.14.118 20:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about freedom of speech or controversy, it's about the policy for content. I don't think anyone has argued that the controversy surrounding Davies is the problem; in fact, it seems to have contributed to his notability. Gerta 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This person seems to be verifiable. .V. _[Talk|Email] 01:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- I was wondering who this guy was and what was known about the controversy surrounding him. While there are some stylistic problems with the article at the moment (some seems to be written from blog-insiders for blog-insiders), that can be corrected with a certain amount of editing. Deletion, on the other hand, would just increase the question marks. (I normally "inhabit" the German wikipedia, and came "over here" to check out this article because I figured I would find something at least halfway informative (I had heard about Davies on another German-language website that discusses the ex-gay phenomenon, not Wikipedia). When I saw that it was marked for deletion, I thought that it would be too bad if I had gotten interested next week instead of this week and the article were gone and I wouldn't have been able to find this collection of sources and links to relevant information.--Bhuck 07:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree the article revolves around blogs at some points, and the fault is entirely my own -- it carried over from my original version of the article. I'll work to clean it up and get the focus back onto the stronger references, and I'll encourage others to do the same on the discussion page. Gerta 15:02, 6 February 2007 (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.