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 No consensus. Despite the the contention that this article clearly meets WP:BIO I don't see this as being the case. There are citations in the article from reliable sources, but Ben is not the primary subject of these sources; he is mentioned in passing along with other vloggers. I would consider this to be trivial coverage. That said, there is quite a bit of trivial coverage; enough that I think the gestalt establishes that the subject meets the spirit of WP:BIO if not the letter. There is also the issue of a number of newer editors with a fixation on this particular AfD opining here. Distilling out just the opinions of more established editors leads me to declare that there is no consensus to delete at this time, thus defaulting to keep. That said, some of the sourcing could use tightening up; not everything being used is a reliable source. --Isotope23 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben_Going[edit]

Delete Article is nominated but it is lacks factual information and is written like a fan site and/or autobiography for a person who is currently living. It lacks neutrality based on edits made by close friends and appears to be an advertisement for Vlogger. The page has been up for over a year and the content is misleading and counter factual. It redas like a resume/cv or advert for "his career". This "vlogger" has threatened to delete his youtube account several times, and uploads copyrighted material which against the TOS of both this site and YouTube.Sexyorge

  • Comment - He got a passing reference in the NYT article, a passing reference in the CNet article, and a passing reference in the AP article. In none of those three did he receive significant coverage. He doesn't meet the notability guidelines, there is really nothing else to it. cacophony ◄► 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, you are mischaracterizing his coverage in the sources you mention. You also neglect to bring up the two Australian sources, of which he is the subject. Ichormosquito 06:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No, YOU neglected to bring up the two Australian sources, one of which is a blog and the other of which is a youtube video. cacophony ◄► 05:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The blog in question is not owned and operated by The Age, but in fact by one of their reporters. The blog itself is not affiliated with the news, it's just a courtesy provided to employees. The views of the blog do not represent the views of the news. It is an Op-Ed blog, and nothing more. cacophony ◄► 23:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
disagree, in fact you Ichormosquito the one you wrote edit and article are misrepresenting and misciting your sources such as New York Times article. I agree with other users. No where does the article state that Boh3m3 was part of Jackass or auditioned. In fact, all it said was that he was inspired (techincally "aspired"). the "video" in question is set to private, and lacks credibility because it's inutile. nevertheless, the article needs expert attention and less bias. nevertheless, the article needs expert attention and less bias first-person ,opinioned worthless material. Sexyorge
  • Comment - A summarily inaccurate representation of said user's contributions. Stop lying. cacophony ◄► 22:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Accounts created just to comment and vote for deletions concerning Youtube:

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comment - User Shoopshoop's first edit is over 10 weeks ago. Does he or she have a time machine, or did he or she just see into the future to forsee this AfD? cacophony ◄► 22:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there any chance that it is you creating all the accounts to vote on the Youtube deletions? I didn't say the Shoopshoop account was created to vote on THIS youtube deletion. Please reread what I wrote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please refrain from misrepresenting statements. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) did NOT claim "User:Shoopshoop" was created for this AfD. He is right to claim User:Shoopshoop has done little on Wikipedia except work toward the deletion of content, especially YouTube-related content. Just today I cleaned up some of his vandalism at Caitlin Hill. User:Shoopshoop and User:Mikeskehan, mikeskehan on YouTube, were involved in the circus that became of YouTuber Cory Williams's AfD, which was tending toward a final decision of "no consensus" had Cory Williams himself not complained through Wikipedia:OTRS of rogue Wikipedians who CALLED HIS HOUSE to argue against his article's existence.[2] YouTuber antagonists, and I use the plural even though I have doubts whether there are more than one, are utterly relentless. I realize I'm going off topic and getting a bit ad hominem, but this whole charade is driving me nuts, which, I suppose, is its point. I can only hope they (he?) don't (doesn't) have Ben Going's phone number. Ichormosquito 03:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "He is right to claim User:Shoopshoop has done little on Wikipedia except work toward the deletion of content, especially YouTube-related content."
Correction: He claimed that User:Shoopshoop had done NOTHING except work toward the deletion of content. You are softening up his statement and in the process completely changing the meaning of it. Namely, the difference between mostly and completely. cacophony

◄► 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Yes, and it says something different than what RAN1958 would have you believe it says. He asserts that Shoopshoop has done nothing but participate in deletion discussions, and that's false. cacophony ◄► 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You are making this far more complicated than it needs to be. RAN1958 said that the only edits the account made were to comment and vote for deletions concerning Youtube. This assertion is incorrect. RAN1958 is wrong. Why are you making such a big deal out of this? It was an incorrect accusation and it has been proven incorrect. It is indisputable because his contribution history is there for everyone to see. cacophony ◄► 17:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See "Drama", below. jillgobean0 is an obvious spoof of popular YouTuber xgobobeanx, a friend of Ben Going. Sexyorge, nominator for this article's deletion, seems to be a spoof of TheSexyOgre666, a vocal defender of popular YouTuber Cory Williams, another one of Going's friends. Ichormosquito 17:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]



- thx Shoopshoop 19:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are trying to use the slippery slope argument. Its better to quote Wikipedia guidelines. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't attempt to cover "every YouTuber". What cross-section we have at YouTube celebrities is closely monitored for notability and kept at a manageable size. I know this isn't the most valid argument, but Going is at least as notable as anyone there. Ichormosquito 19:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What specific part of the guideline are you referring to? Its like saying "Its in the Bible, go look it up", Please cite one or more of the very specific reasons for deletion from the guideline. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that dictate that a subject must have been the subject of significant coverage in several reliable sources. A passing mention is not significant coverage, yet that is what he received. He is not notable by Wikipedia guidelines, and thus I cannot in good faith vote to keep this article. cacophony ◄► 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They just have to have enough coverage so the facts can be verified, and this is a "slam dunk", to quote George Tenet. The New York Times and the AP are both reliable. The media determines notability, not Wikipedians. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The subject of a Wikipedia article must necessarily be deemed notable by Wikipedia guidelines, which you can find at WP:Notability. What the "media determines" is irrelevant, Wikipedia has long-standing guidelines on this very subject. To simply dismiss them as you have done is illogical and irresponsible. By the way, I indented your comment by a tab to improve the page formatting. cacophony ◄► 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I probably agree with you that such ought to be the rule, but I don't think we've convinced the community yet.DGG 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) by virtue of multiple, non-trivial coverage. In addition to the sources in the article, of which he is *mostly* the focus, he is quoted in Newsweek and The New York Post, serving as a "go-to guy" for when mainstream media wants to touch base with the YouTube crowd. Going also has a significant "cult" following. For one thing, he is the 19th most subscribed YouTube account with over 33,000 subscribers. For another, the forum on his website, boh3m3.net, currently has 1,500 registered posters. Far from being a testament to Going's vanity, these users seem to have developed a community independent of fan worship. His over 1,900,000 Google hits under "boh3m3" might be worth a mention, too. Considering "boh3m3"'s unique spelling, this is a massive number. Ichormosquito 20:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's perplexing how you can say that unless you hadn't read the guidelines and the articles you posted. Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that they have to be the subject of multiple, secondary sources. Ben Going has been the subject of exactly zero news stories. In your Newsweek article, the only mention of Going is a single quote from him. To say that he is mostly the focus of this article, or even barely the focus, is simply false. Your NYPost article has the same amount of coverage: one, single quote. The notability guidelines even state, "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The sources you are providing only provide trivial coverage of Ben Going. Again, he does not meet the notability guidelines. I appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia in creating articles like this one, but unfortunately the subject here is not notable. cacophony ◄► 22:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not claim he was the subject of the NY Post or Newsweek story. He is, however, given prominent coverage in the AP story, the CNET story, and the New York Times story, which printed his picture. Taken together, they constitute notability, per If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Regardless, Going is undoubtedly the subject of A Current Affair's segment The Australians are Fooling Us All, which you can view here. One might even argue Going is the subject of The Age's rebuttal.[3] If Going is not notable, why do all these esteemed sources continue to reference him or bother to look up his phone number? We're all working to better Wikipedia: please be sensible, rather than dogmatic. Ichormosquito 03:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You claimed he was "mostly the focus" of the sourced articles. He is not. Not even close. He is given a passing reference. How you can construe a passing reference as being "mostly the focus" is far beyond me. Regardless, multiple passing references does not constitute notability, it constitutes trivial coverage. Moreover, I most certainly will not use your blog link as a citation, because a blog is not a reputable news source, even if the owner of the blog is also a reporter. cacophony ◄► 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoopshoop

  • Comment' are you boh3m3 maybe you could defend yourself? why are you notable again? then again maybe your a fan, like i said "welcome to his fanpage" aka wiki-boh3m3. but in all seriousness are you Ben Going Bohemiabsinthe Sexyorge 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Notability has not been established, as those "largely circulated publications" only go so far as to give Ben Going a passing reference. It's also odd that you should mention sockpuppets, because you have no user page and this edit is the first one you've ever made. cacophony ◄► 22:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
indeed http://www.myspace.com/bohemiabsinthe as i stated earlier this article has become a fansite/page for a vlogger, very confusing Sexyorge
  • Comment - Actually, in accordance with WP:COI, he is not allowed to participate in his own AfD. cacophony ◄► 17:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pasted from WP:COI: Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 1. Editing articles related to you If that is even Going, "exercise great caution" would seem to give him some wiggle room. The user in question only posted once. He backed up his "keep" with valid claims. Ichormosquito 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In accordance with WP:COI, article subjects are not allowed to participate their own AfDs. cacophony
  • Comment I originally meant to paste in the second guideline. Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: ...2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors "Exercise great caution" keeps popping out at me. Ichormosquito 00:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Excersise extreme caution" as in "don't do it and don't get involved with it". cacophony ◄► 23:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
response to drama. Ichormosquito i believe i can speak for myself. my name is not mikeskehan. again, its my feeling that you are missing the point for this nomination. Sexyorge
  • Comment - Ichormosquito, please abide by WP:Civil and immediately refrain from personal attacks, and especially lies. Your supposition is not proof. In case you did not already know, WP:Be_Bold does not include making up lies about other users and asserting them as facts. In addition to that, please WP:Assume_good_faith and refrain from these ad-hominem attacks and instead focus on the discussion at hand. We already have enough accusations from you, 5 to 10 in this AfD ALONE, I think that is 5 to 10 too many. Thanks, cacophony ◄► 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ichormosquito has since edited his post since I made the previous comment. cacophony ◄► 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did. Editors are free to look up the previous version in the edit history. Fearing a reprimand, I softened my attack on Skehan. Ichormosquito 18:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the previous unsigned comment was added by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).
  • Comment i can't speak for other users but i am perfectly innocent Sexyorge
  • Comment - Absolutely. Also, I edited your post a bit for formatting purposes and added your signature. cacophony ◄► 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing I said is a lie. I didn't mean to offend anyone. Ichormosquito 17:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you cannot prove your wild accusations then you might as well be lying. You are blatantly insulting editors to their face, calling them spam accounts for not agreeing with you. You may say you didn't mean to offend anyone, but you are offending me and hopefully others by muddling up this AfD with your baseless accusations. Although I cannot speak for other editors, I can definitively say I would be offended if you called me a spam account, too. Until you can prove these accusations, I challenge you to refrain from making them. Thanks, cacophony ◄► 17:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Correction: I accused them of being spam accounts after checking their edit histories and, in the case of User:Sexyorge and User:Jillgobean0, because of their blatantly provocative names, not because they disagree with me. Ichormosquito 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any connections to other accounts listed by this user. As far as User:Ichormosquito goes, I'd greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from immature personal attacks directed twords me. I have a vote just like everyone else who voted on this article, just as you do. If you wish to have a discussion with me, please take it to private message or on another website. As far as http://www.youtube.com/thesexogre666 is concerned, this 'man' made claims on Youtube that I am a pedophile. You can see by comments I posted that I was just attempting to defend myself and I kept comments to a minimum, as I did not feel this users maturity level was up to par. To say that I am "fixated" with this guy is a rather reckless statement considering this YT user made two videos about me and I made zero about him. Kind of seems like the other way around. Also, implying that I called and harassed Cory Williams (Mr. Safety) is also a reckless statement, as I would not have access to his phone number. The comments left by this user are slanderous and I'm not even sure what they have to do with this articles possible deletion. Have a day.--Mikeskehan 21:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - You are confusing slander and libel. Please use a good source to learn the difference, such as Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You did not accuse them of being spam accounts, you called them spam accounts. Example: "jillgobean0, another spam account" cacophony
The correct term is sockpuppet, not spam accounts. They were created just to edit this and another Youtube article vote for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

◄► 18:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just finished painting my house today and logged back onto to find my account accused of being "provocative". excuse me? but you're accusations are offensive frankly. i am a not a "sock" nor provocative. at this point i could care less. it should be clear what i stated already. i am a real person and believes this fansite should be removed due to neutrality and wp:rs. mainly because you are real life friends with thehill88 and boh3m3.Sexyorge
  • comment - any admin can easily determine that these are separate people - 6 accounts from one person is insane and paranoid - Shoopshoop 21:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ichormosquito - the google hit is hugely inflated becuse of all the spider youtube mirrors such as

this and the thousands of other sites like it- Shoopshoop 21:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be that as it may, YouTubers with moderate subscription rates don't produce nearly as many hits. Even TheHill88 only produces a little over 95,000. My concern is that editors will try "Ben Going" and write him off in the process. Ichormosquito 21:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's nothing in the links you give that disallows a Google test, just warnings to the effect of "proceed with caution". Quoting from WP:GHITS: Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine are no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The reality is, editors who wish to comment but have never heard of Going will probably do a Google test. I ask that they type in "boh3m3" for better results. What number comparisons I made can only support Ben Going's notability; but I realize an argument along those lines can only go so far. Ichormosquito 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That's just it - the number comparisons you made don't support this guy's notability. To say that they do is false and may trick newer editors into thinking they can use a Google hits test to complement the notability of something. cacophony ◄► 23:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, they do support his notability, just to a lesser degree than more legitimate arguments. Enough editors have the brains to not weigh all evidence equally. I'm not "tricking" anyone. Ichormosquito 00:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can't vote twice. I absolutely despise doing this, but here's my YouTube user page. Yes, I am listed as TheHill88's "friend", along with 4,735 other people. She approves for YouTube "friendship" whoever asks; we are hardly friends in any real sense of the term. And I'm not listed as boh3m3's "friend". When AfD is over, I want an admin to clear this information from the record. Since this AfD started, 5 noted YouTuber antagonists, or at least 5 separate accounts, have found my channel and subscribed. At least one has commented at this AfD. Ichormosquito 04:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User is a meat puppet and probably a sock puppet, too. I don't believe the user's story, considering how soon he posted after my Digg warning. The story has only received 1 Digg so far. Ichormosquito 15:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Boh3m3, or Ben Going admits to cheating the terms of the service for youtube. By begging for money on a various youtube clips in fact, in his latest video clip "e-begging" he admits to begging for money and then states he would do "anything for publicity" including having his friends edit and manage his wikipedia article to help advertise his career. Hopeftw 20:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Meat puppet. And Hopeftw is grossly mischaracterizing the video he mentions. If Going were, in fact, stupid enough to mention Wikipedia in one of his video blogs, there would be a heck of a lot more spam on this AfD than there is now. Ichormosquito 21:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'CommentI’m assuming you label everyone that disagrees with you on this matter a “sock puppet”. Boh3m cheated the Youtube terms of service and used his “E-buddies” to help keep this article up. If Wikipedia ever wants to be considered a reliable source of information they’ll do the right thing and terminate bogus articles like this one. ChuckImania 21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the last time, Ichormosquito, please abide by WP:AGF and refrain from making unfounded accusations immediately. If you take a look at User:OverlordQ's contribution list, you would notice they have even more contributions than me, on a more diverse variety of subjects. Yet your only proof that OverlordQ being a meatpuppet is that he and I both once contributed to the same page? Get real. Not to mention that JzG's accusation of vote stacking was a complete lie, as can be seen on my talk page. If you do not cease harassing Wikipedia contributors immediately, I will be forced to take the issue to a higher authority. Stop now. cacophony ◄► 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I edited my post to show that User:OverlordQ originally placed his comment at the very top of this AfD. Ichormosquito 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are some titles these six sources throw at him: "one of best-known members", a possessor of "Internet fame" "Video Star" "prominent figure of the YouTube community" and "YouTube Celebrity". Also, the description of his fans at the YouTube gathering in the CNET article goes some way to proving Going has a "cult" audience, per Wikipedia:BIO, if his 33,000 YouTube subscribers, what CNET refers to as a "regular audience", aren't convincing enough in themselves. Ichormosquito 07:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I got the "33,000" from YouTube, not the CNET article. Ichormosquito 07:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newsday (New York), BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY; Pg. A51 October 10, 2006 BY RICHARD J. DALTON JR. STAFF WRITER 1459 words Ichormosquito 02:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's the whole Newsday story, provided by Free Press: Grassroots Movement Wants Laws to Keep Big Media from Controlling Internet The story gives him a hefty amount of coverage. A description of his video provides the lead in, and the story returns to him for this: YouTube appears to be the perfect forum for raising awareness about the issue, says Going. Fans of the site are among those worried that telecommunications companies and cable providers could try to stifle the growth of online competitors. Going represents the potential risks these sites pose to cable companies. He not only posted a video supporting Net neutrality — he hardly watches television. “I look at so many videos online, and that’s where I get the brunt of my entertainment,” he said. Unless someone else wants to, I'll incorporate this and the holiday promotional stuff as soon as possible. Ichormosquito 02:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This quote is particularly interesting: With more than 464,000 views by YouTube users, the video demonstrates how the seemingly obscure topic has transformed into a grassroots movement that claims its goal is to keep the Internet free from interference by telecommunications giants. Ichormosquito 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Two sentences is not "a hefty amount of coverage". cacophony ◄► 03:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did you read the article? His video was the impetus for the story, and got more than "two sentences". I don't want to argue with you anymore. Ichormosquito 04:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He got two sentences, and the impetus for the story was net neutrality, not Ben Going's video. cacophony ◄► 05:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ichormosquito your comments and accusations personally I find embrassing, hurtful and disturbing. It's becoming abusive and unwarranted. This entire topic needs expert attention and review for TOS Sexyorge 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Sexyorge. Ichormosquito has been nothing but hostile to pretty much anybody who voted for this article to be Deleted. This user has made many unfactual statements about me in a rather uncivil way. I also think this topic should be reviewed for TOS. --Mikeskehan 14:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd recommend a checkuser after the discussion closes to mop up the rest of the likely sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts, assuming they have influenced the final decision to some extent. MastCell Talk 15:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More