Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Yarrow


 * 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 question here appears to be "Does doing one thing multiple time meet BLP1E or not?" The consensus would appear to be that multiple instances of the same "event" does meet BLP1E. Although Yarrow has had more than 100 appearances, they are all basically the same "event" as BLP1E defines it. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Yarrow

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I looked up this guy to check if anyone had created a bio, and sure enough they have. He is not notable, he has just appeared behind news readers a few times. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Wait until he's actually known for more than a stunt to write a biography, please. Fences &amp;  Windows  10:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This guy is simply epic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kipmans (talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep BLP1E is not applicable because there is more than one event - 100+ appearances so far - the person in question is the primary focus of the coverage in the numerous sources supplied; and the person has also received awards and coverage for his community work. The topic is therefore clearly notable per WP:BASIC and the nomination seems to be the classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT which we get in such cases, contrary to WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV.  The nominator indicates that he is well aware of this person's notability as he has already noticed him himself.  The claim of non-notability is therefore absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As a way forward, we might consider developing this into a more general article upon the phenomenon. What we seem to lack is a good title for this activity which has be variously described as "Hello Mum!", video-bombing, doughnutting, news raiding, lurking, &c. but none of these have quite caught on as a common name.  For another amusing example of this which fits the 1E template better, please see Michael Crick. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden, don't try that boilerplate IDONTLIKEIT shtick with me. And I'm not trying to "censor" anything, although adding this article to the categories "Obesity" and "Eccentrics" is pretty offensive, and adding those categories back shows very poor judgement (and he's not a celebrity either). I'm arguing that this man should not have a biography in Wikipedia because he does not meet our guidelines for biographies. You cannot just ignore policy, which is WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. "The nominator indicates that he is well aware of this person's notability as he has already noticed him himself" is a totally false argument: I saw his name on the news and just knew that someone would try to write about this, because some Wikipedians are obsessed with documenting every last "and finally" news story. Someone appearing in the news doesn't make them notable, as you well know: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Your assertion that Yarrow has received coverage for his community work is not backed up by any sources, and I didn't find any such coverage - was that obfuscation or just wishful thinking? If you can find good sources then please do write an ariticle on the general phenomenon, but that's wholly irrelevant to this debate; don't muddy the waters. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:NPOV has nothing to say about retaining or deleting such an article, it is about ensuring balance while writing articles. Don't make such transparently false WP:VAGUEWAVEs please. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I found that coverage that Colonel Warden says shows his notability goes beyond this stunt:. Four lines for winning a "Our Heroes" award from the South London Press. Pardon me for being underwhelmed. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here we go, a whole article in the South London Press. It doesn't change my opinion, it is up to others to decide if this coverage is sufficient. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Methinks he doth protest too much. Let's focus upon the NPOV point above, because this is core policy.  Your position seems to be that this person is not notable because they are not important - that gatecrashing news reportage is a unworthy activity which should not receive such attention.  This is a value judgement - a matter of personal taste and preference - a POV.  We should not selectively delete articles according to our personal preferences because we are not reliable sources and have no special status here which entitles us to act as arbiters of taste or selectors of content.  The WP:N guideline goes to some trouble to explain that we should be guided by the decisions of external, professional third-parties and authorities as to what is worthy of coverage.  If multiple professional editors of respectable and well-established journals like The Guardian have decided that this topic is worthy of coverage then it is not our place to second-guess them and decide that our POV is superior.  The NPOV policy tells us that we should be dispassionate and neutral.  Deletion would be contrary to this because it would be based upon your POV.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This newsbombing stuff is broadly the same as seeking to establish one's notability by creating an article about one's self on Wikipedia. He is a sad nonentity and does not warrant an article here. Minor notoriety is not the same as notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Begruding keep. Obvious attention-seeker, but he's managed to get himself made the subject of several news articles, and that's what WP:GNG is all about. Maybe merge into an article about appearing in the background of news reports if one exists. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Both F&W and Colonel Warden make good points. What is not a good point is to say that because this subject meets GNG, it is automatically notable. There are two answers to that: first, there can be overriding policy reasons to delete (eg NOTNEWS and BLP1E); and second, GNG only creates a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. At the end of the day, notability is about being "worthy of note". Objective guidelines like GNG can help us get there but can't take us all the way. With those two points in mind, judgments about articles of this kind do become subjective to some degree. In my view, this person's only claim to notability is for stunts to get in the news. In my view, that is not notable and I agree with F&W regarding BLP1E and NOTNEWS. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP1E is irrelevant because we have more than one event and no separate article about the event. NOTNEWS is irrelevant because that's about routine happenings such as weather and traffic.  Your main point seems to be that you want notability to be a popularity contest in which we vote to see who stays on the island or who is thrown out of the house.  Wikipedia is not reality TV and turning up at AFD does not entitle you to a vote. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Yarrow is this week's Articles for deletion/Robert Unwin, a guy who put in a legendary bad performance on a reality singing program and was also "famous" for a short while. WP:BLP1E does apply here because he is the subject of a single news story, which has been retold many times in the media around 27-30 July 2010. (His 100+ photo-bombings do not count because he is not the subject of those news stories). But he's unlikely to every be a news story again after next week. If he becomes the subject of more independent news stories in the following months - as happened with serial pests Peter Hore and Karl Power, or reality TV contestant William Hung - that's when he becomes notable. Otherwise he will fade into obscurity very quickly like Unwin. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * These are good examples - thanks for the input. Unwin seems to be a genuine 1E case because it was just one event and there was a separate article about the reality show.  Yarrow is past this threshold, being involved in 100+ events and having separate notability for his caring work.  Your other examples are all blue links which demonstrate that we have multiple articles about serial exhibitionists and protestors.  The claims above that this sort of activity does not qualify for Wikipedia notability are thus disproven. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no mention him in the coverage of those 100+ events, so they are irrelevant for notability purposes. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Funny one... Sadly, he doesn't get as much independent coverage as Jimmy Jump. I can see that all the "sources" are in fact interviews - thus primary sources that don't account as valid. Maashatra11 (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Another example of a similar kind which also leads us to Mark Roberts (streaker). And I am reminded of Articles for deletion/Erica Roe which was a Keep.  All blue links. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I find I am reminded of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. All articles here stand or fall on their own merits, not by some sort of vaguely inherited pseudo notability through marginal similarity. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the significance of precedent is well-recognised here - that's why we have WP:OUTCOMES, to record them. The essay which you cite indicates that such precedents may be helpful to us, "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.".   Colonel Warden (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep He gets ample coverage, as listed in the article. Major news sources do entire articles about him.      D r e a m Focus  13:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Momentarily slightly famous, but that's it. Will be forgotten in a day or so, and there's no lasting significance about his appearances. It's about as noteworthy as the ducklings who got rescued somewhere by an office worker (somewhere in the US??) after they were hatched on a ledge above a pavement.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * keep Good sources brought up here. Calling something crap does not further the discussion one iota. Okip  05:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is never an issue when dealing with a WP:ONEEVENT case, Okip. Your argument to keep is wholly without merit. Tarc (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEEVENT is never an issue when dealing with 100+ events. Your argument to delete is wholly without merit. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * keep Paul Yarrow is becoming a social phenomen, he is much more than just an internet meme. Actually, writting about him I was glad to point out wiki article, since it proves his significance. Even after he stopped his medial presence, he is already important enough for the history. I'd say, I only would let this article delete, if Paul Yarrow will be against publishing this article here. If he isn't against it, I'd keep the article for further reference. Merzmensch (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that is interesting. You are citing Wikipedia to 'show' that this person is notable, and then using that to say that he should be in wikipedia. That is why we insist on true notability and verifiability. Thsi guy has no notability save for looming in the back of TV shots. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, typical WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Flash-in-the-pan attention-mongers are not worthy of an eneclopedia article.  Go blog about them or setup "lookatme.wikia.com" to your heart's desire for this rubbish. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete looks like a pretty classic WP:BLP1E to me. One of the main points of BLP1E is it protects us from "guy does something wacky, gets name in paper" type articles. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete pretty straightforward WP:NOTNEWS to me and per nom. Tavix | Talk  21:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Paul Yarrow was profiled in Nightline on the night of Aug 3, 2010. If the man is notable enough for a full length segment on a major mainstream media news broadcast he should certainly qualify for Wikipedia.  Come on, even Epic Beard Man has his own article.  This isn't the fucking four seasons, the more articles the merrier.Sturmovik (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, sourcing isn't the issue. The question at hand is, if the person is only known for one thing, then the Wikipedia generally does not create articles for such people. Tarc (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the biographies in Wikipedia are for people who are known only for one thing - for being a politician, footballer, singer or whatever. This person is known for multiple types of activity which he has performed on numerous occasions.  The BLP1E argument is therefore wholly inaccurate and inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is for only one thing; jumping into the background of camera shots. Trying to claim that doing the same activity more than one time somehow constitutes "multiple events" is a stretch of credulity even for you, Warden. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Trying to claim that multiple events are one event seems quite typical of the nonsense which we have to suffer here when people start reaching for Wikilawyering excuses to prop up their censorship of topics which they just don't like. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "One" cannot be magically made to equal "multiple" any more than you can make 1+1==3, I'm afraid. Also, lulz at the "OMG Censorship!" cry. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To demonstrate that there is just one event, you should please point to the separate article about this one event. Without this, you have no basis for your one event claim.  Your opposition is not based upon arithmetic but upon the nature of this person and his activities.  You don't think we should cover this person even though numerous respectable journals have decided otherwise.  This is censorship plain and simple - an attempt to control the content of Wikipedia based upon your personal tastes rather than upon objective criteria. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My opinion on the article's subject is supported by policy; your position is supported by emotion, opinion, and personal attacks. I'll leave this tangent at that. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable, "Notnews," and a person famous for one trifling, nonworthy activity.  This is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia look silly.  Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, mostly per WP:BLP1E, until somebody comes up with a social study on this guy or he is referenced as a prime example for modern day attention seeking (in which case short mentioning in a relevant social topic article would do it as well). Nageh (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an article in Der Speigel in which our topic is given as a prime example of modern day attention seeking (aka photobombing): Photobombing: Je blöder, desto besser. Q.E.D.  Colonel Warden (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to a reliable source when I said social study. I am not convinced the events warrant an article of its own for this person. I still think this is better mentioned in a general article on this phenomenon. If this is what you had in mind, I agree with you. Otherwise, I'll change that article to a weak delete for the moment. Nageh (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to our article, Der Speigel is "known in Germany for its distinctive, academic writing style ... As of 2010, Der Spiegel was employing the equivalent of eighty full-time fact checkers, which the Columbia Journalism Review called "most likely the world’s largest fact checking operation"". An inspiration to us all, I trust.  Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have rarely seen such enthusiasm for the inclusion of a nonentity in Wikipedia. I just thought I'd mention that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Such cases are commonplace here - see Articles for deletion/Ivy Bean for another recent example. In my experience, such articles are kept when the coverage of the person becomes international so that they are world-famous.  And that's what we have in this case - coverage in Germany, Turkey, Australia, India, Malaysia, etc.  Colonel Warden (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Der Spiegel (sp!) is also known for a somewhat sensational kind of reporting. But anyway, that's not the point here. The point here is, first, that Der Spiegel is a journalistic magazine, and not one for social or other scientific studies. Second, and surprisingly you completely ignored that argument of mine, is that I think this should be covered in a general article on the phenomenon. Or do you suggest that every single article that Der Spiegel covers warrants a Wikipedia article? And last but not least, why the seemingly personal feelings here? Nageh (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nageh, I think your last question has a short answer - Colonel Warden is the creator of this article. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The nail has been hit on the head. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh! Haha... I didn't get that. :) Nageh (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2010 (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.