Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Day (2nd nomination)

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. v/r - TP 03:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Day

AfDs for this article:
Alex Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As anticipated in the deletion review, this recreation is now being tested at AfD. The three sources listed at deletion review ([1], [2], [3]) each contain only passing mention of Day, and in each case only to frame discussion of YouTube, which is the real topic of each article and the focus of the coverage. The other sources are all either not independent of the subject (e.g., YouTube) or fail to demonstrate notability independent of his various acts (Chameleon Circuit (band) and Chartjackers). Thus, the general notability guideline is again violated, as in the last four AfDs. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this nomination is entirely mistaken, and based on a misunderstanding of the WP:GNG. It's true that in each case, Alex Day is not the main subject of the article, but it's not necessary for him to be the main subject. All that's necessary is for it to be "more than a trivial mention". All three sources are reliable, and the mentions are non-trivial, so the GNG is passed.—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG calls for "significant coverage" and specifies a requirement of "more than a trivial mention". If you're arguing that these articles mention him more than trivially (one of them spends all of two sentences on him and calls him a "wannabe comedian") then I'm going to have to disagree. Lagrange613 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I argue below to keep, but I don't agree with the rationale given here--I think that the article really needs to be about the subject; if it's primarily about something else, a move / rename / redirect is in order. Cazort (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agree with S.Marshall - every instance of the deletion of this article appears hate-motivated; childish antics all contrary to the spirit of wiki guidelines - too many wiki-lawyers clutching at straws to have the article deleted time and time again, simple because they can't control their own POV, or maintain distance from things they don't like WP:JDLI. Immature nominations, waste of time. Period. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 21:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's focus on notability. I argue to keep below but I do not think that the comments here have any content or weight here.Cazort (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero interest in personal attacks like this. Behave or be reported. Lagrange613 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero interest in wiki-lawering. You seem to enjoy twisting guidelines to your advantage - do not threaten me. This nomination is a farce. As are your aspersions. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 22:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are legitimate grounds to argue to keep. Personal attacks will just upset people, focus on the policies and facts and argue your point, it'll be more effective. Cazort (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Behave or be reported" - is this the bullshit we have in store for the next week?--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all remember to be WP:CIVIL. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 06:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is so far out of my field, and the sources are so unfamiliar to me, that I have no opinion of notability But I think that if great popularity in any media can be shown, that, despite the wording of WP:N, it can amount to notability. The current wording is "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." But the actual effect of WP:N depends on our interpretation of what is a RS for notability, and though there are customary guidelines for that, the guidelines in WP:N must be interpreted by the community as applicable any particular case. I interpret the present understanding to be that popularity can allow for the acceptance of things as RSs for notable that we might not otherwise accept. In any case, the community can make whatever exceptions it pleases. I'll give my opinion about an exception in something I know about, but I can not reasonable give it for this, except to say that the community should allow for anything reasonable -- and keep out of Wikipedia anything not reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not necessarily because of the subject's notability, but mainly because the current version of this article is almost identical to the one that was deleted last October following this AfD discussion (probably the most thorough of the four previous discussions on this person). The only real changes to the article since then seem to be the addition of links to some YouTube pages (which aren't reliable sources) and general mos fixes. Very little of the actual content of the article has changed, therefore the arguments favouring deletion back then are all still valid now. I have previously espoused how I think that, if the article does exist, it needs to be written in chronological order so as to make the most logical sense to an uninformed reader. Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that this particular article should be deleted per WP:G4 and maybe WP:G11 (which I know are technically criteria for speedy deletion, but I still think they're relevant here). Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has had 1397 views in the last 30 days - they can't all be AFD regulars. A subject from an internet-only world, with only intrernet sources. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my reasoning in the last AFD, there has been enough coverage for him to be considered notable under the general guidelines. I know this has been deleted and kept before, it is starting to look like a magic eightball. And this article being similar to a deleted one is not relevant to the conversation in an AFD, since it wasn't CSD. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep many sources have now been provided showing it passes independent notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is interesting. In response to the claim that previous AfDs are 'hate-motivated', I have to strongly disagree. I am personally a great fan of Alex Day - he was the first user I ever subscribed to on YouTube (several years ago). Throughout the many AfDs all I have been trying to do is follow the rules of Wikipedia. I don't understand how this article can go through several AfDs (some of them very thorough), with all of them ending in delete because the sources don't support notability, and now suddenly the same sources are up to scratch. I am confused to say the least. —Half Price 11:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: When reviewing the RFF I did not compare deleted versions with this one - RFFs are for considering current articles, not for resolving deletion issues. Per my unbiased RFF, I think this article suitable - I am not interested in the fan-boys and hate-kids who squabbled over its previous incarnations, and still stand by my belief that this nomination is another example of that. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 13:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Charlie has a Wikipedia page, that doesn't necessarily mean that Alex should have one too. 109.204.113.111 (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX is an essay - essays are not wiki policy. And he didn't say "Charlie has an article, so Alex should too" - you implied that, falsely. He said "Alex is no less notable" - given that they're in the same bands, making the same music, the same type vid and jokes, same interests and travel together.. oh and living together - then it's not hard to see why they have so much in common and build up similar rapport with people. Another moot point, debunked. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 17:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several sources were ignored by the nominator, without any reason provided, which provide evidence of notability of the subject in independent sources:
It would have been helpful if any of the sources you mention were in the article. I don't think "ignored... without any reason provided" is an accurate description Lagrange613 (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll improve the article this evening. As the nominator, you have a responsibility to check prior AfDs before nominating. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. I participated in the AfD I think you're talking about and am familiar with those sources. Consensus at the time was that they did not establish notability, and I still agree with that consensus. Lagrange613 (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All it looks like to me is that you and a few others just want to keep nominating the article for AfD again and again, until the "Keep" people get bored of arguing about it, so come the third or fourth time round they don't bother voting anymore, resulting in a low but clear "Delete" consensus from the pushers. In short, you simply appear to be using AfD to advocate your opinion under false pretences, and under-handedly abusing wiki's AfD procedure - i.e. if you can't "win" first time, keep going until you do. And don't start the "NPA" boo-hoo nonsense, we're all entitled to an opinion - and that's mine. Like it or lump it! Either way, this continuous nomination of the same article time and time again is foolish, and a waste of genuine editors time. I fail to see the "good faith" behind the nomination, or in your responses to the "Keep" people, which shows clear resentment, every time. But hey, prove me wrong, if Alex Day matters so little to you - as it seems to be that you have a bee in your bonnet about his very existence. "That" consensus is dead in the water - if you can't accept consensus read this and consider if you have any. :) Ma®©usBritish [talk] 23:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All the sources thrown together amount to enough significance. Strongest items are the Wired, VidCon, BBC, and Huffington Post (in no specific order). If there were just one such item, it wouldn't amount to much, but all taken together, it means the he is someone the media are taking note off. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these articles are specifically about this person, or contain enough coverage to establish notability? Cazort (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha I answer my own question below. Cazort (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian and The Telegraph, as two of the most widely-read British national-level broadsheet newspapers, are also very strong sources.—S Marshall T/C 11:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Lagrange. Non-notable musician and entertainer. 86.6.40.200 (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)— 86.6.40.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I argued to delete in the first deletion discussion: [4] The majority of sources cited do not meet WP:RS. The article needs serious cleanup. But I'm now convinced of notability because of the combination of: [5], [6], and [7], and the fact that [8] identifies him as "genre founder" -- I think this person was not notable during the last AfD but has since become notable. Cazort (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like the keep !votes might just take it... I'd just like to reiterate that, if that does turn out to be the case, then I really do still think that the entire article needs to be restructured and rewritten. It is currently laid out as follows: Chameleon Circuit -> Trock -> Sons of Admirals -> solo material -> Chartjackers -> Upstaged -> nerimon -> fiveawesomeguys -> BlogTV -> "CheekTV" (whatever that is). From what I know about this individual, it really could do with being laid out something like as follows: Early life -> nerimon -> being featured on YouTube -> building a fanbase -> fiveawesomeguys -> Upstaged -> Trock -> Chameleon Circuit -> solo material -> Chartjackers -> Sons of Admirals -> etc. etc. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. There is no vote. See WP:NOTVOTE. This discussion will either build consensus or fail to be closed with no consensus, at which point an administrator will make a decision to either keep or delete the article based on the article and the nature of the failure to reach consensus. Cazort (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase: "It looks like the consensus of the community will decide that this article should be kept... I'd just like to reiterate that, etc. etc." A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not odd at all, really. Articles that get deleted get recreated all the time, the results of AfD are not foolproof, especially in cases like this. I encourage you to edit outside the realm of Alex-Day-related articles to get a feel for this. Cheers!--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's not odd...I gave sources that have been found, which included some that weren't there during the first AfD. It's very common for a subject to be deleted, and then later, to become notable. Especially true of living persons, as their coverage tends to build up over time, often eventually leading to their notability. Cazort (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Add another 400,000 to that 30,000, and you'll be more on target. ;) Ma®©usBritish [talk] 02:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the number of fans is relevant. Significant coverage in reliable sources is. Please consult WP:N and keep the discussion relevant to the appropriate wikipedia policies. Number of subscribers alone is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not there are reliable sources written about him...you could have far fewer subscribers but be notable if you had detailed coverage in reliable sources. And vice versa. Cazort (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do think number of subs which suggests popularity, denotes notability in an obscure form. I don't think your telling others what to read and discuss helps, without also giving your own keep/delete opinion - it appears to advocate a limited discussion and prevent transparency between editors - you say above there is no vote - maybe not, but a quick tally does give the admin a better idea of how the consensus sways, without having to read every word. All policies and guidelines are flexible to some degree, whilst a keep/delete vote pretty much lets you know where an editor stands, with or without comments. 2000 Keeps and 20 Deletes are stronger indication than any one long comment from a "delete" editor. And 400,000 subs and being a YT Partner are equally a greater indication of notability than 100 or so subs and nothing more - YouTube Partnership is a self-nomination process whereby YouTube considers the number of subscribers, views, videos to a degree - it also considers quality of videos to a stronger degree. With a few exceptions, a lot of YouTube Partners have international recognition - Alex Day, though a Brit, is well known in North America - his YouTube success lead to that. I think it is foolish of anyone to deny that someone with near to half a million followers is not notable in the public eye. Even if you were to remove all the dead and duplicate account in YouTube subs list - the resulting drop would average out across every YouTube channel, partner or not, maybe 20–30% - even not counting subs at all, views alone still keeps those Partners "most subbed" and "most viewed". WP:N is a guideline, not a policy - people who keep doing the "read WP:N policy" really need to take their own advice and go read the little boxes at the top before committing to the rest of the page, then they won't keep making that mistake. WP:N calls for "common sense" - so here's some for you to consider: Given that Youtube is "self contained" - i.e. the only people who register the number of subs, views, etc is Google/Youtube itself. YouTube is the primary source. 200 National newspapers could write about Alex Day, and say "Alex has 400,000 subs and has been a YT'er since ddmmyyyy, and a Partner since ddmmyyyy" - there's still only one place they can acquire that information, and the only reason they can write about him is because of his YT recognition - so if newspapers are "reliable sources" then their own source to cite has got to be YT. The rest they research, and don't always verify, before publishing - see Charlie McDonnell's latest video on being written about in The Sun - a national newspaper - a "reliable source" by Wiki RS, and yet Charlie points out several fallacies - because "RS" is an umbrella term that includes virtually all national newspapers - good or bad - which in itself is subjective matter. There are flaws in WP:N, as WP:N and WP:V don't always go hand-in-hand - leaving holes in Wiki-standards that many references fall through, because as much as the media might be "reliable", a lot of the time they publish complete bollocks. Do you think YouTube is going to falsify its own counter statistics, given that Google is a greedy, tax-evading, corporation that wants to pay Partners as little as possible from its Ad revenue and goes out of its way to not count "bloated" view counts from bots and proxies, etc? Common sense - applies to any Wiki article based on a YouTuber - without YouTube, most of these people would be serving BigMacs and never hear the word "notable". Many of the top popular YouTube Partners, whether you personally like them or not, are usually notable because they are not run of the mill amateur video makers. So, if an admin is reviewing this word for word.. that's kept them busy for a while. :) Ma®©usBritish [talk] 06:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you check below, you will see that I argued to keep before replying to your comment. And be concise. I do not agree with you that a tally of keep vs. deletes says anything about the consensus. 100 keeps and 2 deletes where the deletes make a good point and the keeps make no point at all would be a consensus to delete. And vice versa. That's the point of WP:NOTVOTE. Cazort (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His YouTube channel clearly says that he's notable by our standards. His mum probably does too. (Also, sufficient coverage in reliable sources). Will someone please go through the references and remove 2/3 of the YouTube links? There is no reason to link to the YouTube channel of every individual member, past and present, of Chameleon Circuit. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The YouTube channel is self-published and this alone says nothing about notability. The issue is whether or not independent sources have covered him. If he has a ton of fans who just view the stuff but there's nothing ever documented in any source that has any editorial integrity, that alone doesn't establish notability. I am arguing to keep above by providing sources that I claim meet WP:RS and thus meet the guidelines set out in WP:N. Please keep the discussion focused on relevant guidelines. Cazort (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and  Done - have converted all of them from in-line to citations to using the {{YouTube}} channel template which creates an in-line external link, but not as a citation - thus removing several invalid references. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 15:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure that that's really an improvement. WP:CITE advises strongly against embedding external links within the main body of the article. Besides, is it really necessary to list the YouTube usernames of each and every member of CC? If there is a reliable source that lists the full names of all the the band members, then that should really be sufficient for this article. The only real reason I can think of to list all of their usernames might be if you were describing how they first came into contact with each other and became a band, but that'd really be more appropriate for the Chameleon Circuit article itself. Anyway, I think this is going beyond the scope of the purpose of this discussion. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Youtube}} template automatically creates an external link. Besides, it would only be contrary to WP:CITE if they were being used for citations - a citation relates to a reference to support a claim in the article - in these cases they are not supportive, they are simply linking to channels because "they exist", and were linked before I adjusted the format to a more suitable method, not because they provide any source of information. Beats having a cluttered External links section. It was a copy-edit rather than a rewrite as I do not know anything about Day or how he formed his band to alter text to what you recommend. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 17:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and leave content to article on band. I've looked through the cites that I thought might be the most reliable sources but was disappointed (a CNN link turns out to be "a user-generated section of CNN.com. The stories in this section are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they are posted.", in the Guardian one Alex Day is used to bracket a thinktank report. Two sentences in passing on the Telegraphs web. Others seem to be to blogs or outside mainstream press. Among the worst is a Reddit conversation - would we include the last comment posted (contains swearing) and claim that the sourcing is good. In general my feeling is that if the citations were trimmed to just reliable sources a lot of content would fall like a house of cards and reveal that his chap is just not notable of himself.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the Reddit ref - there were about 6 refs clumped together so I removed a few trashy ones - must have missed this one - yes, it was crap. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 18:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks to Lagrange613 for making me aware of this discussion. I think Graeme's above argument is a valid one: refs 8 thru 44 are all either unreliable, self-published, dead, primary sources, or don't mention Day at all. It's similar with refs 48 to 64. Notability is not established. 109.204.113.111 (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only a few sources can be sufficient to establish notability on a case by case basis. By your math we have at least 10 references of value. The existence of excessive references which don't count towards notability doesn't mean you do some odd subtraction. What really intrigues me is why this discussion is drawing such a mix of Alex Day masturbators, pro and con.--Milowent • talkblp-r 23:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol.. there's an apt description! I notice a lot of his previous AfD's attract a suspicious amount of anon IPs though.. haters and fangirls? Idk what they see in him, personally I think he's a bit.. "greasy" and full of himself - Charlie's a sounder, more modest, character. But both are sounder than the cons you mention - think it's time for a Keep and to stop the deletion feuding, personally. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 23:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's more like seven than 10, and I've not checked all seven to see which are more than just brief, passing mentions, so it's probably even fewer than that. I stand by delete. 109.204.113.111 (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That remark doesn't even warrant recognition - if there's a problem with an article it should be marked for cleanup, not deletion. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 00:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe we should keep the article as I have mentioned above, but if the result of this dicussion is keep, then this should be the last AFD discussion about Alex Day because as MarcusBritish has said, this argument is basically fan-haters just not liking the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nominalthesecond (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are not generally salted to my knowledge, especially since there are multiple criteria for deletion. If consensus ends up being that Day passes WP:GNG I'm not going to nominate it again, since in my view it's consensus that matters, but I can't think of why another editor should be stopped from doing so. Please remember to assume good faith; the (misbegotten) hostility of several members of the Keep camp during this AfD has taken me somewhat by surprise. Lagrange613 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm bemused that this wasn't simply speedy deleted. On seeing that the article had been recreated I had assumed that there was new content and/or refs which indicated the subject was now notable. If there is such material, I'm afraid it has eluded me. The number of refs is so vast I have not checked them all, or whether they simply correspond to those used before, but they seem to be overwhelmingly from unreliable sources and/or to make minimal mention of the subject. This is so much the case that it may help the case of the article's advocates to shovel out the dross refs to see if any of value remain. I can't see anything substantial that has changed since I nominated it for deletion last October, so I may as well repeat the spiel: "Apparently fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Vast no. of refs but overwhelmingly from subjects own web sites and ones directly associated with him, blogs, other self-published sites, minor or very indirect (or even apparent non-) mentions." Doddy Wuid (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the above comments, you'll see that I and others have given concrete examples of sources we believe establish notability. This discussion got ugly, and many people are arguing to keep on poor grounds and making personal attacks. And the article is in dire need of cleanup, with most of the sources referencing self-published material. Cazort (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of the references are not reliable, but some of the references are, such as those mentioned in the proposal. If there were only one reference, then I would consider keeping but wonder if it was a fluke that this person was profiled over others. But there is not one reference; he has been profiled independently by major international news sources. The article's subject is not highly notable, but he is notable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article does seem to suffer from citation overkill (and I would personally urge the removal of information such as YouTube "most viewed" charts), but some of the citations do genuinely (and, to the point, reliably) portray, Day as a pioneering musician with genuine influence (although admittedly within a very specific niche), which is enough to convince me that this article meets our standards. Kansan (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2011 (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.
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Day_(2nd_nomination)