Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DaxFlame


 * 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. Sr13 00:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

DaxFlame

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Copycat uTube actor/soap opera that is not notable. Article provides no reliable sources. I'm also thinking WP:SPAM. Evb-wiki 03:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - who said a youtube video can be a article on wikipedia? Hirohisat  Freedom of Speech  03:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a video. It's an entire saga of videos. Try actually reading the article before trying to delete it, moron. Lonelygirl15 gets an article; Daxflame gets an article. End of story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zewb509  (talk • contribs).  Zewb509 is the original editor of this article.
 * Other articles on the same topic existing is not a valid keep reason. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can someone block Zewb509 since the account is only being used to vandlize/add obscene photos to Wikipedia. Crazysuit 04:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, WJBscribe has already blocked them. Well done! Crazysuit 04:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 *  Strong Delete. Fictional character with no reliable sources. (By contrast, Lonelygirl15 has an extensive list of media and other independent references.) —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the only (reliable) source needed in the Daxflame article is concerning the question if he's "real" or "fake". For this purpose I have added a reference in the article. But I don't see why the other content (synopsis, etc.) should need a source. — Slaapwel 16:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are still needed to establish the notability of the videos. If he's real, his videos are his claim to fame. If he's fake, his videos are the central subject of the article. Either way, unless verifiable sources can meet the notability criteria—and WP:WEB is in play since we're talking about YouTube—the article stands to be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I still find it odd that you would only consider established mainstream media as the only kind of reliable source to determine if somebody/something is notable or not. With that kind of reasoning everything outside of the mainstream (cult followings, etc.) would be considered not notable. That really doesn't make any sense to me. — Slaapwel 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is, the standard we're working to meet is skewed that way. WP:WEB states that to be notable, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[,] except for" press release reprints and trivial coverage. WP:RS gives more leeway: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context.... In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources...." I don't think it has to be mainstream media to be reliable; however, the more well-known a publication is, the better its reputation for being good with fact-checking. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is how people choose to interpret that standard, or more precisely the notability guideline. People seem to deduct the level of fame/notability based on coverage in mainstream media and call this "notability". While if you do a blogsearch on Daxflame you'll find numerous posts on him and his videos in all kinds of blogs from all over the world, and outside the YouTube community. For me this counts as significant coverage, independent of the subject. And so it meets the notability criterion. We should also keep the context of this article in mind, this is not an article about for example exact science. — Slaapwel 19:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem becomes, how trustworthy are bloggers? That's where the standard writes in a level of judgment. To me, the quantity of appearances in blogs is irrelevant; the quality of blogs he's written up in is what is important. (Note also that WP:WEB doesn't list Ghits as a criterion any more. Volume isn't the key.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My question is: trustworthy about what? Since we are not relying on these blogs to actually provide us with any kind of information. (Except maybe for disputed facts that should be able to be verified like the real/fake debate. In that case the argument of citizen journalism still stands I think.) These blogs/sources are merely to prove that he is notable. So if a regular blogger decides to make a post about Daxflame in his or her blog (not just link the video, but actually write something about it), I do believe this actually demonstrates his notability. Same goes for fansites, forum threads, etc. But I agree however that quantity to some extent is meaningless since this is not a popularity contest. — Slaapwel 21:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found another more "reliable source" on Newscloud.com. Daxflame is the subject of an article entitle "Is the latest lonely diarist too good to be true?" I'll add this to the article as a reference. — Slaapwel 21:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As to the "real or fake" debate, the link in the article clearly shows it's a character. People have even published his yearbook with his real name on YouTube. And that's the reason why I think the article should exist, because it's all just a mockumentary (hoax, if you will). If he was just a regular "popular" video blogger I would probably not object to deletion. — Slaapwel 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed from strong delete to just delete in light of the assertion he was featured on G4tv. The seed of doubt is in my mind that he's not just another internet meme of the day. —C.Fred (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. --Haemo 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete CSD A7 Web content that does not assert the importance of the subject It's on youtube. That's no assertion of importance, so are tens of thousands of other videos. "End of story". Crazysuit 04:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Crazysuit. lonelygirl15 has been covered extensively by the media. DaxFlame has not --Breno talk 07:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A7-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 10:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete not important. OysterGuitarst 21:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to get the discussion going here, but I'm not getting a lot of response. So here goes another try. I would like to point out that the people who just make a (speedy) delete vote are not really making any kind of argument as to why the article should be deleted in their opinion. (see: arguments to avoid) As I understand it, the deletion process is not about counting the votes but about discussion and argumentation. Merely stating "speedy delete" without a reason is basically irrelevant. For the people who made the argument about notability and reliable sources I have tried to counter that, but I still haven't gotten any response so far. — Slaapwel 00:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Implicitly, "speedy delete" implies the editor thinks the article does not assert significance or importance—either that or blatant advertising, but since (s)he said "not important," I think it's fair to assume they mean A7. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * please don't delete this article. there is question if this is a real person on Youtube or not. This article helped me determine he's not a real person, just an actor. If there is an article on ask a ninja then there should be one on DaxFlame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fifthnail (talk • contribs).
 * Once again, other articles on the same topic existing is not a valid keep reason. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask a Ninja and lonelygirl15 have both been featured extensively on the media, with Ninja even going on Mythbusters for an episode. DaxFlame just doesn't cut it - yet. Doing a Google News search yields only two results: a video from a non-news source reportedly outing DaxFlame as Madison Patrello, and an Engadget story about Apple TV which makes a trivial reference in passing. For DaxFlame to be notable and therefore have his own article, he needs to be covered by secondary sources to cite. --Breno talk 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He was featured on Attack of the Show! on G4tv. I added this to his article. Slaapwel 13:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is a synopsis available at the G4tv website? Link it if you've got it, please! —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was part of an item called YouTube Star of the Moment (link), a recording of the show can be found here (edited by the user though). — Slaapwel 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the notability criterion should be interpreted as "acknowledged by mainstream media". I agree these are usually more authoritative and reliable sources; but I also think some degree of citizen journalism should be taken into account. Especially since the article we're discussing is considered to be an internet phenomenon. There are numerous blogs and vlogs discussing Daxflame. Which in my opinion counts as a significant coverage, independent of the subject. I don't think this article can be considered as merely an advertisement of a trivial Youtube blogger. The article concerns an example of an internet phenomenon and/or hoax. — Slaapwel 16:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep He's an internet phenomenon with 2,144,949 youtube channel views and 26514 subscribers; that should count for something. It's obviously fictional, it's a mockumentary, it's comedy. So how does one define "reliable sources" then? I agree the article needs work, but deleting it isn't going to fix that. Slaapwel 10:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC) — Slaapwel (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Keep. The guy is notable; that's all there is to it.  I think we need to accept that internet celebrities can be notable purley as such.  Having an enormou number of blog posts about you and being one of the most recognizable youtubers DOES in itself qualify a person as notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jglassman (talk • contribs)
 * KEEP! it might need some editing but dax has 2 million views!! the kid is worthy of an Oscar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucskarn (talk • contribs) — Lucskarn (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP! it might need some editing but dax has 2 million views!! the kid is worthy of an Oscar. There are a bunch of people with a beef against him. But the article meets all requirements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucskarn (talk • contribs)


 * 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.