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 - arguments that he fails WP:BIO haven't been countered. Yomanganitalk 18:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not true. We are living amidst a new phenomenon. Up until now for example, the presenter of a CBS or any other notable TV show would be recognised as notable. YouTube is a new phenomenon, in that it is a media body in its seemingly trivial role as a video sharing site. Highly subscribed members of YouTube are now like TV presenter, newsreaders, ETC! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.9.197 (talk • contribs) .
Don't Delete Doesn't fail WP:BIO nor "web content" under section 3 of that criteria. Youtube doesn't automatically make people notable, but people do become notable through their own efforts in it --Arislan 04:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you explain this in more detail please? JoshuaZ 04:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ie, we want you to tell us how this person is notable outside Youtube. If their just in Youtube, it's not enough. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is like saying that Jared is only notable in subway commercials and that's not enough. --Arislan 16:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er no. Jared has been independently interviewed, there have been articles about him in newspapers etc. JoshuaZ 17:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Subway is huge, and Jared is too. TV celebraties are often notable for being TV celebreties. But, Yutube doens't make people famous. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Under WP:BIO, William merits inclusion based on the criterion: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". William is both an editor and an author of his own work. William's work has received hundreds of thousands of views by an international audience and has been independently commented upon and rated by that international audience. William's work may not feature in national galleries or on television, but this does not mean one can discriminate against the value of William's work, for on the basis of popularity alone, William's work is a notable achievement (and continues to become ever more notable). Moreover, if other YouTube celebrities are admissible into this encyclopedia, then so too should William be (you only have to look at William's subscription levels on YouTube as proof of his place amongst other YouTube celebrity peers). YouTube is an artistic phenomenon of our time that allows artists and others a vehicle to connect with the world, and in the case of some, YouTube delivers fame and notoriety, which cannot be dismissed as insignificant. --DavidRWilson 23:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC) — DavidRWilson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Are you kidding? Views and comments on Youtube do not count as "independent reviews"; that passage refers to actual written reviews. The other "Youtube celebrities" with articles at least have something resembling sourcing to back them up, though even those articles aren't without their controversy either. But without any chance of being verifiable, there's no way this article can stay here. WarpstarRider 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no value in being overly rigid about what constitutes notable. If it's something people are interested in knowing more about, it's worth having an article about. Why should the fact that his fame comes through YouTube make a difference? JudahH 00:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, there has been no demonstration that this guy has any sort of "fame" outside of Youtube. WarpstarRider 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose he doesn't. Why does that matter? If enough people see him on YouTube, and want to see a page on him, there should be a page for them to see. (Unless what you're worried about is verifiability, but what's written here is basically verifiable.)JudahH 03:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he has no "fame" outside of Youtube, then there's no reason to have an article about him, no matter how many people watch his videos. The idea that "people on Youtube want to have an article about him" doesn't make him notable by Wikipedia standards. WarpstarRider 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean, "People on YouTube". The point is that people want to have an article on him; how is it possibly relevant whether they know him from YouTube or anywhere else? Where do the "Wikipedia standards" say anything about YouTube? 50,000 people watching his videos is 50,000 people. If you had decided that 50,000 was not enough exposure to be famous, I would understand your position, if disagree with it. But when you say that 50,000 is not enough because those are "people on YouTube", I don't understand your logic. JudahH 04:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Views on Youtube do not equal notability. There have been numerous battles already involving the notability of other supposed "Youtube celebrities", and I generally support deletion of all of them, but some of those at least have some semblance of coverage in outside sources. This has nothing besides "people watching his videos want to write an article on him", which is completely irrelevant. Without outside sources, there can't even be a dispute; this should be deleted. WarpstarRider 05:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I came on Wikipedia today to see an article about William Sledd, and I got one. I was really surprised to see it was up for deletion. Some may see what he does as being useless and not notable.But before you delete this article, take into account how many people he makes happy. Whenever I'm sad or need really good fashion advice I look to William, he always seems to make my day. If that isn't notable, then I don't know what is.--Tezzy149 19:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC) –User's tenth edit.[reply]
Then you may need to read some of the policies and guidelines, like WP:V and WP:N. There have been lot of battles over "Youtube celebrity" articles; the others that have been fought over at least had some kind of sources to back up the article. This one doesn't have anything that even attempts to back up the claims to this guy's supposed notability. It has to go. WarpstarRider 23:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to go. The "guy's supposed notability" is evidenced from the number of comments and subscribers he has. If his youtube stats aren't enough, then look at the comments themselves.--Arislan 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the Youtube directory. Notability isn't based on how many subscribers someone has there, or number of views of their videos, or anything like that that is only tied to the Youtube community. There has to be claim to some semblence of notability to the outside world, or there isn't even a valid argument for keeping this around. WarpstarRider 11:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is the "YouTube community" not part of the "outside world"? They don't live on the same planet or something? This distinction you're trying to make doesn't make sense. JudahH 19:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general, in order for something to be notable it needs to be noticed by someone outside the community. For examples of how this works, you may want to see WP:BIO or WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A large fan base" is one of the criteria listed in WP:BIO. As for the person's "community", you're using a very broad definition of the word. I don't see how the so-labeled "community" of people who watch YouTube differs from the "communities" of people who watch CBS, or read the New York Times. JudahH 23:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's listed under the section for "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." Youtube videos aren't covered under any of those. WarpstarRider 00:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very dogmatic way to read what is, after all, a guideline. The whole point of guidelines is that it's impossible to cover every single contingency—they're simply guides to policy. A YouTube personality with a large fanbase is completely analogous to an actor with a fanbase (IMHO, of course). A fanbase is a fanbase. JudahH 00:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "dogmatic", that's what the guideline actually says. You can't compare actors who are known by millions around the world through movies, television, news coverage, etc. to Random Youtube Guy who no one else knows about and hasn't been covered by any outside sources. WarpstarRider 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure that's what it says; when that sentence was written, I doubt YouTube celebrities were even envisioned. My point stands: a guideline is meant as a general outline of policy, to be applied to specific cases through judgment. To say, "This is what is written—anything else is proscribed", is to be very dogmatic. That said, in your last comment, you did mention a solid distinction between actors and YouTube celebrities: millions versus tens of thousands. In my view 50,000 (viewers, smaller fanbase of course) is sufficient to be called notable, but that's an area of opinion where you're free to disagree, obviously. What I don't understand is the knee-jerk branding of "YouTube celebrities" as by definition non-notable. JudahH 03:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the key is having significant recognition from outside sources, not a high hit count on Youtube. From WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."WarpstarRider 10:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to bring lonelygirl15 into this, but her reason for having a Wikipedia page is because she is a fake YouTuber. If a fake YouTuber gets a Wikipedia page, then why shouldn't a real one? They both used the same medium to become famous, it just so happens William Sledd is actually William Sledd. If it comes to this article being deleted, all I ask is that there is a possibility for this page to be recreated in the future. He has talent, maybe he'll have his own talk show. It's also very possible he won't get famous outside of YouTube, but you never know.--Tezzy149 22:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a vast oversimplification. Lonelygirl15's "fakeness" generated a lot of attention from outside sources, Sledd has not. If he does do something significant in the future, then there can be an article then. WarpstarRider 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Chicago Sun-Times is a reliable third party source ... --DavidRWilson 22:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, he's only used as a list item in an article about Youtube in general; there isn't any actual information given. WarpstarRider 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
William may not be the focus of this article, but that is not the point. The point is, that a reliable third party source has testified to William's popularity on YouTube. This is independent verification of his YouTube celebrity. If the test of inclusion on this encyclopedia in William's case is popularity plus independent verification of that popularty, which combined constitutes "notable", then William has met that test. There is no need for this article to write extensively on William, all that is required is verification. --DavidRWilson 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely wrong. The article you posted simply includes his name in a rather large list of high-rated users, at the end of a story that covers YouTube in general and doesn't mention him at all. This is not verification of any supposed "celebrity"; it's a trivial mention, and can't be used as a source. Go back and read the policies and guidelines again. WarpstarRider 00:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and improve. The article so far only covers trivia. The article needs to be lenthaned to cover the whole saga. This person is the fasest rising subscribed member on YouTube and came into the top twenty in just over a month. He has now found his way into the top ten. 82.39.9.197 12:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete / speedy delete. Another youtube biography of a nonentity with no assertion of notability. Proto::type 13:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A nonentity? Being viewed by tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people differs him by absolutely nothing to, an independent film actor, a stage actor, or for example, this poet, Steven Herrick. So, please tell me what the difference is? W33nie 19:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Youtube is not a reason for a person's popularity. StonedChipmunk 03:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem now is that this article will temp be deleted only to be reposted as soon as some media outlets document his rise to fame. I therefore suggest to prolong the deletion discussion. Your thoughts please. Chavatshimshon 01:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't anything "documenting his rise to fame" now, then there can't be an article now. WarpstarRider 01:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now hold on a minute. I've been following the thread closely here. I'm the guy that started of this trend by creating the renetto article. As I understand from what you have written above, the veracity of his notability is disputed since there is a lack of third party (media) coverage, of his fame. What is not in question is his fame, there is certainly no need for documentation of that point. On the other hand, he is rising to fame on only on YouTube and similar vlogging sites, which arguably is not a comparison to an independent media body yet. But yet again, the fact has it that he is in class of his own, in that he is the fastest rising subscribed member since Geriatric1927 whose article here is well written and received a high visitor count. So he is famous now, but we are trying to establish how and why. Dont confuse your own points as put above by yourself in discrediting his notability. Yes we are waiting for sources outside of YouTube to write it up so we can attach them as sources at the end of this article, but no, there is no need to delete him speedily just because we cant wait a few days or a week. The bottom line is, YouTube is unique phenomenon in that it is a media body in itself, that Google have now bought that out is making this hard to see, since its going to be a monopoly, but if there would be a few popular vlogging sites, it would be more clear to us how their users are both independently and by being featured (as in media bodies) becoming notable. Chavatshimshon 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His "fame" is exactly what is in question; a high hit count can not solely determine fame or notability, as this is not the Youtube directory. You clearly need to get more acquainted with WP policies; once again, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Without any reliable sources to verify this guy's supposed notability or any of the information in this article at this moment, there can not be an article about him at this moment. That is not in question by anyone who knows the policies. WarpstarRider 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His fame according to standards for a wikipedia article is being questioned, not his fame as a celeb. He has accumulated 1000 new subscriptions in less than one week. People are coming here, reading the article, leaving and wikipedia lives on. Quite clearly this is not a cheap add and the article is a service. Agreed that there must be a source to link to the article with in the week. Until then what we have here is a bunch of new wiki editors, a new generation, bringing YouTube with them, and they are most welcome. I'm one of them. The guidelines on Internet memes will slowly evolve with our influx. Chavatshimshon 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia policies are not going to be changed because of people who want to write worthless articles on non-notable subjects. If your arguments have no basis in policy, then you have no real argument for keeping this article here. WarpstarRider 02:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're misinterpreting the word "third-party", WarpstarRider. Third-party sources are sources other than the editor himself. In this context, YouTube.com itself is surely a third-party source: the issue is verifiability, and statements which can be verified from youtube.com are verifiable. The statements in this article fall into that category. Some of them (i.e. information about hit count on a specific date) may no longer be verifiable; but when written were verifiable; those are debatable, but I think that if something is included legitimately, it should be valid, even if the source is no longer available. JudahH 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the thousandth time, no, YouTube stats do not count. The big box at the top of WP:V clarifies what that passage means: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." YouTube stats are notreliable, published sources. An entire article can not be included simply on the basis of a hit count; there have to be reliable sources verifying any claims of notability and any other information in the article. Until that exists, there can not be an article. WarpstarRider 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please define what is meant by "reliable, third-party sources"? And please quote your authority. In addition, any precedent or examples? --DavidRWilson 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, YouTube is a primary source. WP:RS talks about information from blogs on YouTube—that's not at all the same as the statistics that YouTube itself publishes about the views, subscribers, etc. of its videos. It's ridiculous to think that YouTube, the primary source for this information, is unreliable about it, but if a newspaper would republish the same information, it would become reliable. JudahH 05:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not getting it. See WP:V again where it specifically says that reliable, third-party, published sources are absolutely required for an article's existence. Anything can be a primary source about itself; the very idea of verifiability is that there must be outside sources backing them up. The existence of enough such sources is what establishes a subject as notable. Now stop waving around the guy's YouTube stats, because that's not what we're looking for here. WarpstarRider 06:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO nn notable.--Dakota 22:42, 8 November 2006 (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.