Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathon Ware
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. Eluchil404 05:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jonathon Ware
Yet again another non-notable Youtube "celebrity". Yes, he's been interviewed on television. Yes, the Washington Post has talked about him. But even the post called his interview his "17 seconds of fame". Everybody who gets interviewed on TV does not a Wikipedia article make. Find something else that he's noted for, find reliable sources that you can write a biography on, or else he's not notable. Corvus cornix 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Non-notable meme. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It satisfies all the notability guidelines. If it was just that he was popular on youtube, that'd be one thing, but he's gained national coverage. Notability is not temporary. Also, the "17 seconds of fame" is a reference to his initial video being 17 seconds long.--CyberGhostface 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- And to the Post's columnist's reference to "the golden age of inanity", which this "article" would cause to be applied to Wikipedia if kept. Corvus cornix 20:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- You mean it wasn't already when we got an article on Chris Crocker?--CyberGhostface 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. Corvus cornix 21:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- You mean it wasn't already when we got an article on Chris Crocker?--CyberGhostface 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- And to the Post's columnist's reference to "the golden age of inanity", which this "article" would cause to be applied to Wikipedia if kept. Corvus cornix 20:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Ware had an article devoted to him in The Post, which is a major newspaper in D.C., and a large portion of Virginia and Maryland. The Post is a very notable newspaper. Also appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live. Though I know that notability is not inherited, I think that's enough to satisfy WP:N. I mean, it's not like someone went and created an article about an obscure wannabe "celebrity". NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Delete per nom. Corvus has a point. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)- Comment Being the subject of one article is hardly the sole basis for it. Its that, along with numerous other media coverage as well as the merchandising with his likeness, tv appearences and general fandom surrounding him.--CyberGhostface 01:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Should we have articles on Sylvia Blackwood? Joshua Calloway? Peter Mullenhard, Steven McCormick, Gregory Toms and Ronald S. Sheinson? Why not? There are Post columns about them. Corvus cornix 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Washington Post is hardly the only published source Ware has been found on.--CyberGhostface 21:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. 17 seconds of fame is not enough, guidelines clearly state notability is based upon a full 15 minutes. Okay, seriously, I don't think a single article is quite enough. If it were, I could get my brother an article, he's been in paper a few times. If this is still getting buzz in 3 months (or at least in 14 minutes and 43 seconds), then we can re-create.--UsaSatsui 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per UsaSats. NN. I too like turtles Tiptopper 10:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- delete - not notable. Notability is not established by a cute, we have no news tonight, so we will tell you about this youtube kid... Iamchrisryan 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - without more WP:RS, this is subject does not meet WP:BIO. Add a few more (maybe The Oregonian) that are not trivial coverage, and then it would meet the guidelines. Aboutmovies 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You mean like this? Obviously he's not going to be the subject of a major news story.--CyberGhostface 22:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually that wouldn't work, as that would qualify as trival coverage since the kid's name is never mentioned, as it is about the incident, and not about him. Aboutmovies 23:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You mean like this? Obviously he's not going to be the subject of a major news story.--CyberGhostface 22:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep Doesn't coverage in the Washington Post carry some weight?--Bedivere 19:51, 6 October 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.
