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 keep. ((Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie MacDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet minimum requirements for a biographical article. Subject has had some negligible media coverage relating more to his autism than any accomplishment. Caper454 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject easily meets the General Notability Guidelines based on the seven references which are entirely about him, by major publications (Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, The Huffington Post, and CBC News). At nine million video views (four videos reaching over three hundred thousand) he also meets point 2 of WP:ENTERTAINER;

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Based on the discussion at Talk:Frankie MacDonald#Delete it seems the nominator either doesn't like Mr. MacDonald or his YouTube feed, and deems him unworthy to have a Wikipedia article.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss the proposed deletion, not the nominator's motives. Caper454 (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I will do both. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep does have outside RS. and besides, with 3-million viewers, he's more popular than CNN --ha.Cramyourspam (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A handful of mentions in the media can hardly be termed "significant coverage". Let's be honest: Frankie MacDonald is an autistic janitor at a shopping mall who has a YouTube channel. Is that enough to make someone notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Any legitimate media coverage which exists (and which has been used to source the article) deals almost exclusively with the fact that he's autistic and he's been ridiculed for his videos. He's not receiving media attention for accomplishments which create notability. These sources are questionable at best. Caper454 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does his occupation, or the fact that he has autism preclude him from having a Wikipedia article? The articles were written about him. Entire articles. Your opinion of the reason that these groups decided to write stories about him is irrelevant. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to stay on topic and watch the personal attacks. Caper454 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal attack, and that is entirely on topic. If autism and his occupation have nothing to do with why the article should be deleted, you should strike that sentence. If they are related to why the article should be deleted, you should explain why. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that "the fact that he has autism preclude(s) him from having a Wikipedia article". My point was simply that any media attention he has received concerns the facts that he A) has autism and B) has received substantial ridicule (online and radio) for his videos. He is not receiving media attention for a noteworthy accomplishment. Does being the subject of ridicule make one notable enough for inclusion here? Caper454 (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are belittling someone because they have a disability, what their day job is, or a combination thereof. And in answer to your last question, your opinion as to why someone receives coverage is not relevant. It is exactly that, your opinion (otherwise known as original research). The fact is he received coverage. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely not belittling the subject; I am simply stating what I'm reading in the cited sources you provided when you created the article. This isn't about me, so stay on topic. Caper454 (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: struck duplicate !vote above. The nomination is considered the delete !vote. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than enough reputable third-party sources have been referenced and is highly likely to continue or increase in the future. As I stated on the subject's talk page, google Frankie MacDonald and let the results speak for themselves. It would appear that the nominator has a serious issue with Mr. MacDonald getting the credit he deserves to have regarding his popularity/appeal and has an axe to grind IMO. Regards,  Aloha27 talk  22:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Great, another editor who can't engage in a discussion without making it personal. As I believe you are aware, I know Frankie MacDonald personally for many years and have never EVER had a problem with him on a personal level. My assertion that he isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article here should by no means be interpreted as having "a serious issue with Mr. MacDonald getting the credit he deserves" or having any type of "axe to grind". You should demonstrate some professionalism and retract that baseless accusation immediately. Caper454 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're admittedly closer than arm's length to the subject at hand. I strongly suggest you take a break, go for a walk or find something else to do for awhile while this is resolved. Regards,  Aloha27 talk  22:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of you, knock it off. Aloha, you'll need to do better than "just Google it", and you can't make this a personal matter in this way: please read WP:AGF. Caper, I can't help but take your claims with a grain of salt but, either way, it doesn't matter: the article will be kept on its merits, not on whether he has a day job you respect. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, just because somebody garners a bit of "human interest" coverage for a non-encyclopedic achievement doesn't mean they suddenly warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia. Of the seven sources cited here, further, two of them are just blogged reposts of specific weather forecast videos that he happened to post — which means we're looking at five real sources rather than seven. And while five sources would be more than enough coverage to get him over a subject-specific inclusion guideline if he actually met one, it's not enough coverage to get someone over WP:GNG.

And, for that matter, when we're talking about someone who's autistic, we should actually be exercising extra caution to protect his personal privacy. We already know that he's been a frequent and persistent target of online mockery and negative commentary, and his detractors would almost certainly try to use a Wikipedia article about him as another forum for that — but the wikimodel of allowing anybody to edit, and then relying on oversight by other editors to control for neutrality and accuracy, loses effectiveness very rapidly the lower a subject's actual public profile gets. Unsourced or POV criticism, and other inappropriate edits, can end up staying in our articles uncaught for months if the topic isn't widely known enough to generate a consistent volume of traffic — which is one of the key reasons why we even have notability standards to distinguish who belongs in here and who doesn't. So we should actually set the bar for his inclusion here a lot higher than just five pieces of human interest coverage, precisely in order to protect his privacy and dignity. The risk of vandalism or attack editing here is disproportionately high in relation to the quite limited level of public prominence that he actually holds, so we need to take extra precautions to mitigate that.

So what we have here is a person who (a) isn't notable for anything that would ordinarily be expected to get a person into an encyclopedia, (b) isn't really all that spectacularly well-sourced for WP:GNG purposes, and (c) has an overriding WP:BLP consideration under which we should strongly consider not having an article about him at all, precisely to avoid the risk of compounding harm. All of that, to me, spells a delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Some people don't believe the coverage is warranted, but that doesn't matter. As far as protecting his privacy and dignity goes, I think we should be careful and protect the page if it is vandalized, but there's no reason to delete the page over this hypothetical problem. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five articles can hardly be regarded as "significant coverage", thus WP:GNG is clearly not satisfied. Caper454 (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point, however, was that vandalism is not always caught promptly. Vandalism to Barack Obama's article, for example, will be caught within minutes because it gets a high volume of traffic — but a low-profile article like this might very well get fewer pageviews in an entire year than Obama's gets in one day, and vandalism quite frequently stays in such articles undetected for weeks or months. And no, five news articles is not enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I did not find any of the arguments made in favour of deletion particularly compelling until I hit Bearcat's well-reasoned arguments, making me sit back and step away for a few hours to consider his cogent points. Nonetheless, I find myself disagreeing with him, and I came back to express my keep opinion and disagreement for the following reasons:

1. I'm not entirely sure what "human interest coverage" is and, even if the term applies to the sources here, I am unsure why such a description is relevant to this debate. I am unaware of any guideline or policy that would allow, require or encourage us to attribute less weight to such coverage. Arguably most coverage is "human interest" coverage. (That last sentence of mine is a little facetious, since I do understand what Bearcat is describing, but I don't think the distinction is a meaningful one for this discussion.)
2. I am not convinced that the subject's achievements are non-encyclopedic achievements. We have an entire category of articles on YouTube celebrities. I am not saying that in a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sense, nor am I trying to encourage an inane and soul-destroying debate over comparable numbers of YouTube views, but I am saying it merely to emphasize that the notion of encyclopedic achievement is evolving. Social media fame can be an encyclopedic achievement. What he has achieved can often, in fact, be expected to get a person into an encyclopedia.
3. I am satisfied that WP:GNG is easily met. The coverage meets every element of the definition of "significant coverage" in WP:GNG on its face - it addresses the subject directly, no OR is required to extract the content, and it is way more than just trivial mentions. I don't see anything language in WP:GNG which would dismiss the coverage MacDonald has received in a number of major Canadian media outlets as being insufficient. And although I totally get Bearcat's comments about "blogged reposts" for two of those sources, I think the fact that his videos are reposted in such a high profile source (with the accompanying discussion) is itself another indicia of notability. If anyone believes that coverage in the Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, CBC and Huffpost does not constitute "significant coverage" as it is defined in WP:GNG, then please provide more than the bald assertions that have been provided thus far - please point us to the explicit applicable guideline or policy language. And in response to Bearcat's comment about the article not being "all that spectacularly well-sourced for WP:GNG purposes", I ask Bearcat(with tongue firmly in cheek) to refer us to the policy or guideline which requires that articles be spectacularly sourced.
4. Bearcat's third point (his second paragraph) troubles me the most. Partially because in a sense I agree - we need to be very careful and sensitive here, and take the subject's privacy and dignity into account, and I take Bearcat's comments in that spirit. But, otherwise, I completely disagree. Bearcat's good faith comments would, if adopted, have the (unintended) perverse effect of creating a higher notability threshold for persons with autism or other neurological disorders and disabilities. And that simply can't be right. Even if we presume for a moment that this article is a borderline case (which I don't believe for a minute, for the reasons set out above), as Bearcat seems to be suggesting in his first two points, I cannot agree that we should have a special rule where subjects with a disability or disorder are automatic fails in borderline situations while other subjects are not (and such a special rule is not, as far as I am aware, supported by anything in WP:BLP). We wouldn't be protecting the subject with such an approach - we'd be victimizing him/her.

   I don't think anyone here would disagree with the well-known fact that the comments sections on YouTube are infamous cesspools of some really nasty and offensive commentary. If we adopted Bearcat's approach, which would effectively set the bar higher for articles on anyone who has faced vile comments on YouTube because of their physical and mental disorders and disabilities, race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, or gender, then we need to immediately revisit tens of thousands or our articles. I don't buy the argument that YouTube comments, or other online commentary, should (or does) dictate (even in part) Wikipedia content or even our notability thresholds. Even if there was some merit to that argument, though, that's something that needs to be discussed on a project-wide basis, resulting in explicit policy or guideline language, not as a one-off in an AfD discussion. If we are going to treat MacDonald differently because he is autistic, then that's a bigger discussion and not one that should be had here.

   While I am not entirely sure that there is any proven or meaningful correlation between the volume of inappropriate YouTube/online comments and inappropriate edits on Wikipedia, we do have a simple solution in the event this article attracts more than its share of vandals - indefinite semi-protection, as would be permitted by WP:SEMI. [ETA: As for Bearcat's fear that low page views might result in undiscovered vandalism, speculation as to vandalism is not a legitimate rationale for deletion. Let's try asking the people here, and at Wikiproject Canada, to add this article to their watchlists before we panic.]

For those reasons, I strongly believe that this is a keep. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well put Skeezix1000. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that we have a lot of articles about personalities who got their start on YouTube, the difference between those and this is that those people parlayed their YouTube "fame" into some real-world achievement that passed a subject-specific inclusion rule on its own steam — e.g. getting signed to a record deal, getting cast in conventional film or television roles, etc. We do not have a lot of articles — in fact, we have very close to none at all — about people for whom the YouTube videos themselves are the entire notability claim.

And no, I'm not proposing that we apply some special standard of notability that disallows articles about people who might attract negative commentary; taken to its logical conclusion, what you think I'm suggesting would actually exclude Presidents of the United States and Prime Ministers of Canada. What I'm pointing out, rather, is that the proportion of potential readers of this article whose motivation is vandal-oriented, vs. those whose motivation is more neutral and respectful and "I just want to know more about this guy", is wildly out of whack in this particular instance. Barack Obama, for starters, so deranges people that they'll even disown their own ideas if he signs on to them, and Stephen Harper inspires a lot of harshly negative commentary too — but the audience for our articles about them, the volume of traffic they generate, is broad and diverse enough to control for POV editing or vandalism. But there is very nearly no potential audience for an article about this person outside of that network of nasty YouTube commenters, because very few people outside of the snark cult are actually familiar enough with him to even expect or seek out a Wikipedia article about him in the first place. There's a big difference between "person who attracts negative commentary" — which would bunk somewhere north of 75 per cent of all of our BLPs — and "person for whom the negative commenters are very nearly the entire potential audience for an article about this person" — which is something we need to think about very carefully, especially when you have to rely on sources that don't pass our reliable sourcing standards, like Buzzfeed or community weeklies that aren't widely-distributed enough to confer notability, just to even approach the dozen-plus distinct sources it takes to have any hope of even maybe passing WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I don't know where you get the idea that "There is very nearly 'no' potential audience for an article about this person outside of that network of nasty YouTube commenters, because they're very nearly the 'only' people on earth who have ever actually heard of this guy or care enough to actually seek out an encyclopedia article about him." The coverage he has received says otherwise. But that's a moot point because Wikipedia guidelines don't care who the audience is for an article. He clearly meets WP:GNG and that's enough. You claim that he doesn't meet WP:GNG but you seem to be applying a higher standard for the sourcing while ignoring coverage in major publications like the CBC, Huffington Post, Toronto Sun and Toronto Star. Those alone are more than enough for inclusion. The fact that he has coverage in a number of smaller markets just shows how widely known he is. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, he doesn't have enough coverage — if you're making a claim under GNG rather than a subject-specific inclusion guideline, then you need to get into the double digits on the number of distinct, top-class reliable source publishers. Five distinct articles on the CBC, for example, counts as one source for the purposes of passing GNG, because it's the number of distinct publishers rather than the number of distinct citations — so if you've got Star/Sun/CBC, then you've got three sources toward a guideline that requires the number of sources to be in the double digits.

And community weeklies are acceptable for additional confirmation of facts after enough distinct sources of the Star/Sun/CBC class have been added to get the person over GNG, but cannot count toward getting them over GNG — because their coverage focus is too localized to demonstrate that a person belongs in an international encyclopedia. If community weeklies counted toward notability of a BLP, we'd have to start keeping articles about heads of local PTAs and church bake sale committees. So out of all the sources in the article as written, you still only have three notability-conferring sources toward a guideline for which three sources is not enough to pass it. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double-digit, distinct, top-class publishers, really? In eight years here I have never heard of anything that stringent as a requirement to meet the general notability guidelines. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that we can't simply use local publications to establish notability, and understand what you are getting at (it's why we don't have articles on high school football coaches for example). Despite this we still see local sports coverage being used to support articles about minor league baseball players (of which I have argued for deletion at AfD). But to say that full articles in the Sun, Star, CBC (multiple CBC), Huffington Post, and Hustonia (which as a magazine from Houston, I would say is not local to Mr. MacDonald) are not enough because "we need double-digit distinct publishers as per the GNG" is not supported by anything that I have seen around here. Also, despite having videos imbedded in the articles, they are still articles (with a lot more than a sentence worth of text). If you believe that pages about people with a high vandalism-to-page watcher ratio (or anybody in general) should require a higher standard (in the double-digit range of publishers) of coverage, that is fine as your opinion, but it is not written that way in any policy or guideline.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a longstanding policy of AFD, not my own "personal opinion", that GNG is not even approached, let alone passed, until the number of distinct sources is at least into the double digits — and that is counting distinct publishers, not distinct citations to the same publisher. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know where that is written. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, what you're asking for is far beyond the requirements of WP:GNG. If you want to change Wikipedia policies this isn't the place for such a discussion. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for any change of policy — I'm arguing exactly what the policy already is. You cannot meet GNG by including sources like Buzzfeed or the Fayetteville Flyer, and the sources here that do meet the standard necessary to count toward GNG aren't satisfying the volume of sourcing necessary to pass it. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GNG: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Tchaliburton (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, with all due respect, at this point you kind of appear to be making stuff up. Namely:

1. " I'm not proposing that we apply some special standard of notability"

   You're doing precisely that, although it appears that was not your intent. You basically said that if the accomplishment is of questionable merit and notability is debatable (both of which I dispute), then we should be "exercising extra caution" to protect the subject's privacy and dignity "when we're talking about someone who's autistic", and we should "set the bar for his inclusion here a lot higher". Whether intended or not, that's a double standard for autistic people, and I explained in great detail above why I do not think that's right, it's unsupported by Wikipedia guidelines and policies and has potentially bad ramifications. (Unclear why you are mentioning Obama and Harper as examples, since there is no debate that the U.S. President and Canadian P.M. are notable, negative commentary and membership in a disadvantaged group not even being an issue - as it should be).

2. "you need to get into the double digits on the number of distinct, top-class reliable source publishers"

   Above I asked that people stop making bald assertions as to the minimum threshold of reliable sources and to point us to actual, specific requirements. You have not done that. In contrast, others here have pointed to specific language in WP:GNG to show how its been met.

   Please point to the policy, guideline, or discussion that created a consensus for GNG, which establishes "double digits" as the minimum threshold. I've been here for 9 years, and am unaware of such a rule. If it is indeed, as you say, "a longstanding policy of AFD" and not your personal opinion, then you should be able to point us to that policy language that would be determinative here.

   And if you want to dismiss Huffington Post, one of whose reporters recently won a Pulitzer, as a reliable source, then please point us to the discussion where that became the consensus for purposes of establishing notability.

3. "the negative commenters are very nearly the entire potential audience for an article about this person"

   This is an amazing statement, because unless you are omniscient you have no way of knowing this to be true. It also seems incorrect based on the facts. He's been covered by Canada's largest newspaper, its public broadcaster, one of its largest newspaper chains, and the Canadian edition of one of the world's largest news sites. The CBC named him one of the 10 top news stories in Nova Scotia in 2013. That's a lot of positive attention. I've explained above why we should not be making content decisions here on Wikipedia because of the notorious assholes on YouTube.

4. "when you have to rely on sources that don't pass our reliable sourcing standards, like Buzzfeed or community weeklies that aren't widely-distributed enough to confer notability"

   You've repeated this assertion (that Buzzfeed and a local paper are being relied upon to establish notability) twice for some reason, and it's patently untrue. Nobody has suggested that the subject is notable by relying on sources like Buzzfeed or the Fayetteville Flyer. Whether intentionally or not, comments such as this are misrepresenting the positions of others here.

As for your comments on YouTube celebrities, I think that you have overstated the typical threshold for inclusion for social media celebrities. In any event, though, this issue we've both been discussing is a bit of a red herring. Our notability guidelines require significant coverage in reliable sources, whether the subject has received that coverage for writing poems, perennially losing elections, or being an autistic weather enthusiast. The focus is on the coverage. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because of the significant coverage in reliable sources, and the excellent analysis of the issues by Skeezix1000. I will put the article on my watch list, and encourage other editors to do so as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More than enough encyclopaedic material from a brief scan to show that this subject meets general notability guidelines. Article may need some tweaking, but that is not a reason for deletion. Libby norman (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2014 (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.