Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Sledd (2nd nomination)

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; discarding links back to the subject, blogs, and unsubstantiated claims that the subject may have been mentioned somewhere (which even if true would not constitute notability), absolutely nothing appears to suggest that the subject has become notable outside the Youtube community/geek subculture. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Sledd (2nd nomination)

William Sledd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • Delete I believe we should look at this article not so personally, but with a/an professional/encyclopedic view. For those who like the article, we must set aside articles that represent a more personal 'page' and a more biographic (sp) page backed by notability and supporting resources. Remember this "no evidence of independent external sources; nothing to demonstrate notability outside YouTube" -Walton monarchist89. If this article were to have these two items INSIDE of the article, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion....--AJ42 11:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Many or probably most of the people who said KEEP, are just fans who do not know wikipedia terms in biographies. (Pleasantview 12:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
  • This person is not famous at all outside of youtube.Therefore, this person is unencyclopedic. I vote Delete. Pleasantview 15:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pleasantview

Procedural nomination -- no vote yet. User:Pleasantview originally tagged this page db-bio but this was declined, so she added the entry to the AfD log but did not add a template or rationale. Please see the previous AfD discussion, whose consensus was "delete," for more information. N Shar 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • After careful consideration, I vote delete as the nominator. The person's notability is not established, and though he may be well-known on YouTube, well-known is not always the same as notable. Appears to fail WP:BIO, though there may be sources out there -- but this is not apparent from the article. --N Shar 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomOo7565 18:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unless reliable sources are provided to establish notability. utcursch | talk 18:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of independent external sources; nothing to demonstrate notability outside YouTube. Walton monarchist89 18:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article has been around the deletion block a couple of times. It was restored (by me) due to additional citations of notability, but now that I've taken a closer look, it seems like it has slid back into the shitter. I'll see about digging through the history and finding some sources. A cursory Google search turns up a fair number of hits, though it remains to be seen how many of them are wortwhile. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keepof course it should be kept... don't bash the gay man7—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.160.194.85 (talk • contribs).
  • We are not bashing on the gay man. We are talking about an article that should be deleted. Pleasantview 7:16, 20 February 2007
  • Comment. This is not a vote -- you should state the reasons for your opinion, not simply the opinion. --N Shar 03:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I know this isn't being done right, but check the last post on his YouTube -- He was mentioned on the View by Christine Ebersole. (Delete this comment but someone else please repost it.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.81.118.114 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete yet another youtube member article, chock full o' cruft and totally free of references or sources except for two links to youtube videos. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Someone who's a star on Youtube, which has become one of the most popular entertianment outlets in history, is notable. Another story about the subject added to the article [1]. --Oakshade 02:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If William Shedd's article is to be deleted then you might as well delete the YouTube article, too. It is my feeling that anyone in favor of deletion does not recognize the internet as a valid media, therefore is not broadsighted enough to contribute to this discussion. Also, Pleasanview made the comment that he was not a notable star outside of youtube. He has been mentioned on a television talk show and Instinct, a mass media magazine. James Allen Starkloff [[2]]71.30.243.92 10:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Woman's Wear Weekly has also mentioned him. He's obviously gained notoriety outside of youtube. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.209.199 (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete Stevieryan/littleloca who is also famous on youtube appears on TV and on Magazine covers. she doesn't have a wikipedia page. Plesantview

Pleasantview 15:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • With all due respect, even if the person was encyclopedic, this article is not written in a biography form. Pleasantview 15:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Your concern is cause for improvement through editing, not deletion. (jarbarf) 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The non-trivial third party coverage outside of YouTube suggests to me that this person is notable beyond the realm of YouTube. Please. (jarbarf) 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Who is your third party? He isn't famous at all outside of youtube. Well at least there are some users on youtube that are a lot more famous than he is. (Pleasantview)

That is not to say that one must be mentioned on a mainstream television show to be famous. It's just that William was mentioned. youtube is making new stars everyday. Pleasantview, if you want to start a Stevieryan/littleloca page, it wouldn't bother me in the least bit. James Allen Starkloff[[75.89.17.161 15:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as he does not meet WP:BIO. Being mentioned on The View in this form does not constitute non-trivial coverage. GassyGuy 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The YouTube phenomenon has made Time magazine, he's probably one of its most notables. The social phenomenon and its most notable players are worth documenting...even if I'm too old to "get it" personally. I do agree the article needs worth though. Reboot 19:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. further proof of notoriety: he'll be in an upcoming issue of elle magazine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.209.199 (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Your Right, I could make a stevieryan/littleloca page but im not. The reason why is because I am highly sure that the page will be deleted and while this stuck up selfish humans page is still up. (Pleasantview 13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete Irrelevant article Emerald807 01:47, 26 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.