Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Davison


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Phil Davison

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A fine example of WP:BLP1E — the guy is known only for a single YouTube video and a few closely related TV appearances. He's never done anything else to attract significant coverage from reliable sources, and he's neither held nor run for any political office that comes close to passing WP:POLITICIAN. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor flash-in-the-pan internet celebrity. Pburka (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, Phil Davison has received a sufficient amount of coverage in multiple reliable sources (PBS, Politico, Huff Post, etc.) for inclusion on wikipedia. His video has become a part of American pop culture.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And how does he not fit under BLP1E? Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." As you state above, he was interviewed multiple times afterward and not all involved his speech.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't persistent. All of the media coverage was in the two or three days after the speech. Once his fifteen minutes were up he was promptly forgotten. Pburka (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, still receiving some coverage. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, he's described here as an "internet sensation", and is identified by PBS as a potential presidential candidate for 2012. Internet sensations should certainly be included on wikipedia, and even more so if they receive coverage as a potential presidential candidate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All Internet sensations? This is the type of thing that gets forgotten very soon.  You can't really build a proper biography of the guy: everything is concentrated on his speech.  Can't beat Metropolitan's wording: this guy is a perfect example of a flash in the pan.  Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "This is the type of thing that gets forgotten very soon." That is an opinion. Please back this with evidence. And if you believe internet sensations are not notable, please nominate all (or some) of the articles from Category:Internet memes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather, please provide evidence that he will be remembered for anything other than this. Everything that you've shown is at least several weeks old (just after the video became big news), and thus in the wake of the event; it's all part of the single event.  I'm not saying that Internet sensations can't be notable; I was simply challenging your claim that all of them are.  Nyttend (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See recent coverage above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a classic case of WP:BLP1E. A small-time local politician makes a six-minute campaign speech to his local party committee, it gets put on YouTube and becomes one of the many YouTube flash-in-the-pan sensations, and there are a few follow-up articles about it. If this guy becomes a bigger name in the future, or if he becomes a household name (rather than just being "that guy, what's his name, who did the overly excited campaign speech"), the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per 1E. Shep  Talk  00:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, even if his NAME! IS! PHIL! DAVISON! There are a ton of popular YouTube videos, there's not an article for each one. County treasurer-to-be isn't notable either. 74.61.10.229 (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Individuals from popular videos such as Antoine Dodson, actually do have articles.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just had an enjoyable time expanding the article a bit, there's lots of local coverage of him beyond all this.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Are not all councilmen of the Village Of Minerva notable?  Somebody tell Randy Gonzalez about this AfD discussion!  OK, my personal opinion is that having this article does no harm, but I know Phil is likely to lose yet another battle here.--Milowent • talkblp-r  20:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The relevant criterion for all politicians is WP:POLITICIAN — basically, the lowest office that you can hold that, by itself, makes you notable is that of a state legislator. Members of village councils definitely aren't notable because of being village council members; any notable ones are notable for other reasons.  Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As in this case, Phil Davison is notable for his YouTube video, media appearances and presidential speculation. The fact that he is a member of a village council and is frequently featured in the local media, is only additional to his previously established notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know WP:POLITICIAN will not help Phil, despite his valiant losing efforts to get elected to higher offices.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I took you to mean that you weren't familiar with WP:POLITICIAN. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, its my fault, i wasn't being serious but that wasn't clear.--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:11, 15 October 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.