Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas larkin

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas larkin

Originally tagged as a CSD by Heimstern Läufer (talk • contribs • count). The author of the article (Stranger101 (talk • contribs • count)) contested it and gave (what I consider to be) a semi-valid reason on the talk page. After this, another editor Kaustuv (talk • contribs • count) contested it, and reccommended it come to AfD. Personally, I'm sitting on a weak delete, subject to change either way. Daniel.Bryant 03:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't Delete: He is indeed quit known to the Youtube community, but he provides people with a normal persons propesctive on the veiws of the world today. Quite frankly, I see no harm in letting him have his own wiki page. He does not have any harm towards the youtube ommunity, and also, he is only increasing in popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XvXAlucardXvX (talk • contribs)
  • Delete: Anyone can become a "star" on YouTube, and this article gives no verification that Larkin has done anything to influence anyone or truly make him notable. Heimstern Läufer 03:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: As Daniel.Bryant points out, I originally listed this for speedy. I felt that saying "He is known to the YouTube community" did not count as asserting notability. Apparently not all agree with this, so I'll be a little more conservative in applying this criterion in the future. Heimstern Läufer 17:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • To be fair, I think CSD A7 was a fine rationale the first time. However, in this case the author reposted the page twice after deletion. I tend to believe a repost following a speedy should automatically force an AfD because it counts as a contested speedy. Per AGF, it is improper to characterise these recreations as "vandalism" because they are violating guidelines, not policy. I therefore also contest the blocking of User:Stranger101. It would have been much better to invite this user to participate in an AfD, which is less obviously antagonistic than big red boxes and the banhammer. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. No mentions of him in a LexisNexis and a ProQuest search. 50 videos on youtube with a mere 60,000 views is pretty low even for youtube celebrities, and not a single one of his youtube videos has ever been a "featured video" on youtube. He thus ranks lower in notability than renetto, boh3m3, and so on, who also don't meet WP:BIO in my opinion. Note: I have made some small cleanups to this article. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete So you post to You Tube. Big deal. Resolute 05:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ugh. NN. Eusebeus 16:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete YouTubecruft. Danny Lilithborne 16:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanispamcruftisement. SmokyMirror 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thomas Larkin is not a youtube "Celebriity" But he is noticed in the youtube community.I dont know of another Thomas Larkin or he hasnt been posted yet.So i say let him have a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.245.27 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment The above annoymous user deleted SmokyMirror's vote and replaced it with his own comment. Danny Lilithborne 01:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I would argue that Thomas Larkin is moving toward notability on YouTube, but his notability is marginal there. I do think that we should be more liberal in accepting these popular YouTube entries, but this case has not yet stood the test of time. He is a new user and not known outside of YouTube.
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.