Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Billany


 * 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. The consensus is that the subject does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources and therefore does meet the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Martin Billany

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No evidence of notability. No independent sources are cited in the article, and my searches have failed to unearth significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The article is essentially promotional (early versions of the article even more so than the current version). A speedy deletion nomination under CSD A7 was correctly declined on the grounds that the article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, but there are no sources at all to support that claim of significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I have just looked at the user page of the author of the article, and seen that his/her avowed purpose in editing is "increasing the knowledge of Abridged Series through the use of Wikipedia articles". That looks to me like a statement that the intention is to use Wikpedia for promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My intention was never promotion, my intention was to just make information about the subject readily available. I undertand all the arguments for delete and I understand why this article does not meet the guidelines and therefore accept that the page will need to be deleted in the meantime. However should such a time that reliable sources comment upon the topic, is it to be understood that the page could be recreated? Corexdefender (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: The above comment was altered by its author, from "my intention was to just make information about the subject known" to "... readily available", around 15 hours after JamesBWatson wrote that "Writing to increase knowledge of a subject is inconsistent with Wikipedia's ethos. We write to make [information] readily available". Changing a part of a discussion, with no edit summary, after one's stance has been criticized is not good and makes JamesBWatson's comment look absurd. Dricherby (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: The reason it was changed was not due to my attempts to undermine anything anyone has said but to make my intention known. The accusations of me of being a promoter an baseless, I have been misinterpreted in many cases and as a result am unable to make my point of view known. I edited the above statement less then 5 minutes after posting it due to the fact that I mistyped. Forgive me for failing to clarify that in the edit summary but, as is obvious, I have not been an editor on Wikipedia for long. Corexdefender (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I see from the history that the change was indeed made very soon after the original comment was posted. Please insert new material at the bottom of a thread and not at the top, which is confusing. I mistakenly assumed that your comment, inserted between two comments from 23rd May, was also originally written on 23rd May. Dricherby (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer the direct question, yes the article can be recreated in the future, if notability can be established in the future. Dricherby (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it may just be the innocent statement of a new user. If they'd written, say, "increasing the knowledge of particle physics through the use of Wikipedia articles", nobody would bat an eyelid. Dricherby (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Writing to increase knowledge of a subject is inconsistent with Wikipedia's ethos. We write to make readily available information about subjects which have already received substantial attention, not to try to spread knowledge of subjects which haven't. The particle physics example is not at all analogous, because particle physics has already received considerable coverage and attention. We are dealing here with a very different situation: an editor whose avowed intention is to contribute to making well known a subject which at present is known only in a small niche area of the internet. That is an avowed intention to promote. What is more, examination of the editor's editing history confirms that he/she is here for promotional purposes. The fact that it is possible to make up an imaginary scenario in which similar words might be used with different effect does not alter the facts of the existing situation. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Although I understand how my writing style may have appeared promotional, that was not my intention. My intention was to make the information available. The reasons for the apparent bias was that I, as a fan, am biased towards the series, however this does not reduce my credibility or make me open to accusations of promotion. You will see in the editing history of the page that I and others moved out much of the obvious biases towards the series from the article. Corexdefender (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as the non-notable creator of a non-notable... er, thing. I can't even work out what the thing he's created is. The only source I was able to find that might help to establish notability was this article in a student newspaper (University of Edinburgh). I was unable to find anything else, using either a general Google search or Google News with search terms of either "Martin Billany" or "Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged" (without quotes). Dricherby (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a well renowned creator of a largely popular web based parody series. Although research for sources beyond the several authors primary knowledge is in its infancy, the sources backing up notability will be found in due time. A search through many You-Tube award announcements will show Little Kuriboh winning many comedy awards on You-Tube as well as research into the many comic/anime conventions that he visits due to his popularity will show all information supplied in the article is true and accurate towards this well known public figure. Author of Article - Corexdefender (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is indeed important that the article's content be true and accurate but not all true and accurate material belongs on Wikipedia. Please read the general notability guidelines and try to demonstrate that Mr Billany meets those criteria: specifically, that he has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  In essence, without such sources, it's impossible to write a good article on him. Terms like "well renowned", "largely popular" and "well known public figure" are largely meaningless unless you can find reliable sources that attest to them.  Note also that winning awards is not evidence of notability per se, unless the awards are, themselves, notable. Dricherby (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Corexdefender, it is natural that you want to defend the article that you have written, but we can't keep an article on the basis that sources "will be found in due time". We need to see that there actually are reliable independent sources, not that someone speculates that they probably exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.75.152 (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails the general notability guidelines due to the absence of secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * actually, I'd say that the question of secondary sources can be answered...TO AN EXTENT. As others have pointed out, he has gone to several Comic/Anime Conventions (as a guest, which means that the website for the Event has a brief summary of who he is/what he's done).  While brief, these do qualify as secondary sources (and reliable sources) as defined by Wikipedia's standards.  For example, the website for Youmacon would feature a brief summary of him, his works, and stuff like that; as defined by Wikipedia's standards though, this would certainly qualify as a secondary source.  It is independant, and they are not being paid to do this for him, the information posted is factual (as I doubt Martin himself would allow incorrect information about himself be relayed to the public).  The main problem with establishing notability here, by wikipedia standards at least, is that what Martin is well-known for and "famous" for is entirely on the internet, with a few off-shoots into the real world (in the form of t-shirts, hoodies, buttons, and other merchandise people can purchase). GokuSS400 (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Bios in event programmes are not reliable sources and are probably not secondary. They're self-published, probably written by the subject (the usual deal is, "Hey, could you send us a brief bio that we can put on the website?") and they're promotional (the event wants people to think it invites significant people; the subject wants the event to invite them again next year). Something being entirely on the internet does not mean the notability guidelines don't apply. The print media talks about the internet all the time and, for example, many bloggers and websites are talked about all the time "in the real world". You seem to be arguing that, essentially, he's notable but there aren't many sources to show it. This is a fallacy: notability is defined as the existence of sources. Dricherby (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment A listing in a website promoting an event you are a participant in is certainly not an independent source. It is written by someone you are working for, for promotional purposes. (And whether the work is paid or unpaid is irrelevant.) 79.123.75.152 (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (or Merge into Larger articles) I think that one can make the case for there being evidence of Notability, as well as evidence that there are sources enough to merit an article.  However, due to his work being entirely done on the internet, its harder to see standards.  One can make a similar case for Ray William Johnson.  His show Equals Three is entirely about things on the internet, and he is a highly popular figure on youtube, yet it's hard to establish evidence, outisde of the internet, of his notability/popularity.  Martin's work is also fairly well-known among the Voice Actors involved in the 4kids Dub of Yu-Gi-Oh! as well as other notable Voice Actors he has met during convention travels (Dan Green, Wayne Grayson, Eric Stuart, and Vic Mignogna)(With him having met Wayne and Vic in person on separate occasions).  As for my suggestion to merge it into larger articles, it makes more sense in this case (as Abridging is a somewhat growing comedy medium in terms of anime) to add this as part of an article on Abridged series as a whole (that being an off-shoot from Anime).  But as i said at the start, evidence can definitely be established as to Notability, as well as sources being provided (both primary and secondary).  GokuSS400 (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * GokuSS400, you say that "one can make the case" that there is notability, and for the existence of sources, but you don't actually provide any sources. You say "evidence can definitely be established as to Notability", but you don't actually provide the evidence. We don't keep articles because somebody says that sources can be provided, but doesn't actually provide any. You say "it's hard to establish evidence, outisde of the internet", but it doesn't matter whether the sources are on the internet or not (in fact it is actually easier if sources are on the internet, as that makes it easier for users to verify them). Perhaps you mean that it's hard to establish evidence away from his own web site, internet forums, and suchlike sources. If so, then I'm afraid that means that there are no reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, and without them the article does not satisfy our notability guidelines. This means that you have actually given reasons for deletion, not for keeping. I have no idea whether Ray William Johnson is notable, but in any case that is irrelevant. Ray William Johnson may need deleting too, for all I know. And to answer one more point you raise, someone is not notable because he is well known among people he has met. 79.123.75.152 (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * GokuSS400: "I think that one can make the case for there being evidence of Notability". We're not interested in whether somebody could possibly argue that he's maybe notable. Is he notable or not?  (And, please note that it's not "notability/popularity": whether he's popular or not is irrelevant.) Please tell us what is this "evidence [that] can definitely be established": give urls of some reliable sources that establish WP:GNG.  Saying that his work is "fairly well-known" to four people is a contradiction in terms. Dricherby (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually Dricherby, it's not a contradiction in terms. As the people I listed are very famous and well-known Voice Actors.  In terms of outside of his fanbase on youtube, those 4 Voice Actors would be the most well-known people who know him.  So since people are asking for sources, this is an interview done with him by 91.8 The Fan 2 years ago: Interview  there is also a listing for him on IMDb which lists appearances and works he has done (though a few of the entries like Costumes, lighting, misc. crew are joke positions he created himself in a few of his videos): http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3759199/  These 2 links i found within like 5 minutes of just typing his name into Google.  GokuSS400 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how famous the four people are: "well-known by four people" is a contradiction in terms because "well-known" means "known by many people" and four is not many. And, in any case, the criterion is not "well-known" but "notable". As for sources, please read WP:RS and WP:GNG: interviews are often promotional and not independent of the subject; being listed on IMDB is not enough to establish notability, because anybody who has had any role in any TV series or movie is listed there. Dricherby (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can only find coverage in unreliable sources. We need reliable sources to establish notability and I am unable to find any significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.