Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaycarl


 * 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. There is clearly something of a conflict between our guidelines and policies here: in winning an award the subject has clearly reached the arbitrary threshold as set by WP:BIO: but at the same time there is woefully little coverage in reliable sources in order to actually comply with our verifiability and biographies of living persons policies. An encyclopedia has to rely on information from verifiable sources, and this is simply not possible at this time: ultimately the delete arguments based on this are convincing. ~ mazca  talk 00:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Shaycarl

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable YouTube user, fails N and BLP  Kyle  1278  05:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: regarding to my deleted proposal for deletion. -- Esa nchez (Talk 2 me or Sign here) 05:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. There are no references to support this person's importance.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Shay has more subscribers and hits for his videos than several other YouTube celebrities, his videos are always visible on the main Entertainment page of YouTube because of the number of views (several hundred thousand per video) and comments, and most importantly: Shaytards is a unique kind of vlog, because it is: 1. a family vlog, and 2. Shay has been making a video of his 29th year of life for an entire year (290 days have passed). Three different people have tried to create a Wikipedia page about Shay Carl this year, because to some people he is notable. Vincent Van Gogh only sold one single painting in his lifetime, as he simply wasn't very popular, but that which may be trivial today could end up being very important in the long run. If we leave out articles on certain people or events based on our perceptions of their cur­rent importance, that information could be lost forever. And he is both important and notable. I suggest you keep this vote open for at least another week, so more people can voice their opinions. If you want, I can give you more footage about him being in the media and giving interviews (in fact, he recently gave one). --82.171.70.54 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, he is a YouTube partner, makes revenue from the Google Ad-Share Program, and his family lives from that income (he has no other jobs). Which is also quite unique, I would say, for a family to live that way. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He just won the Open Web Awards, in the category Best YouTube Channel or Personality. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment-Keep: There is no question that Shaycarl is a very popular youtuber with a large online audience.  On the other hand, Shaycarl is similar to some other top youtubers in that the amount of press attention devoted to him is less significant than one would otherwise expect from his popularity.  This "gap" in youtuber press coverage was something I first noticed with FRED -- Fred was garnering millions of daily views on a regular basis back in mid 2008, but it took some time for him to be noticed by the press (and only then because his popularity was too great to ignore, and trust me, most journalists and people over 18 strive greatly to avoid watching FRED).  Shaycarl is not at the level of FRED at this point (his Shaycarl channel is #42 on most subscribed at youtube), and a strict application of WP:WEB is going to make it difficult for articles like this to stay.  If the content in the article can be verified with citations, though, I would be in favor of keeping.--Milowent (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC) - I've updated my !vote to keep based on subsequent comments.--Milowent (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB, WP:RS. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely requires improving and citing, but I believe it has a credible claim for notability that is equal to many other YouTube 'celebrity' articles.  Deletion is not a valid response to an article the requires improvement. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to keep now that notability has been established. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I just worked on the article to see what (if anything) could be made of it, and the reality is that there are no good sources with which to write an article. His own YouTube channels do not count as a WP:RS about him. Other than that, he was one of three YouTube personalities covered in a small-town newspaper article by a high school student, and one of his channels won a popularity contest (the Mashable award). I just don't see how he passes WP:GNG, or any other notability guideline. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You removed 15 citations that were added for a reason. They show he has the 13th most subscribed Entertainment channel on YouTube, he recently won a Mashable award, he did indeed run his own business installing granite counters, is active for TheStation and BlogTV, starred in the starred in the Midi Mafia flash mob, is a Mormon, is a YouTube partner, and whatnot. First someone says it needs reliable sources, then I add those, and then you delete them. I despise you Deletionists. I won't edit the article again, you win once more. Delete the article. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought of a few responses to make to your overall position, but y'know what? I'm not going to argue here about the merits of WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB, as this simply just isn't the place for it. If you have problems with WP policies, start a discussion to change them. As to the particulars:
 * I removed 11 links to YouTube (leaving 3) as they aren't third-party reliable sources
 * I removed one duplicated cite to The Daily Star
 * I removed one ref to OpenZine as it didn't appear to be a WP:RS
 * I moved the IMDB and BlogTV links to the "External links" section per WP:MOS
 * His religious beliefs and old job aren't, imo, encyclopedic (particularly when they're unsourced)
 * If you have a problem with this, then you have a problem. But, when I try to discuss it, and then taking your ball and going home isn't the way to solve anything. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * yes but having all of them makes you more notable on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otterathome (talk • contribs) 07:32, 23 December 2009
 * Question: was this in response to User:82.171.70.54 or to me? If me, I'm not sure quite what you're referring to. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming from the comment below to keep i am friarly sure he was referring to you. but not 100% because i am not him.  Kyle  1278  04:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - No way to save this article, The Deletionists win again. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep We have been able to narrow the article down in information, so it doesn't need as many references but as time goes on if more references become available, it would be good to add more information to the article and include the references to the article. While it is lacking references he has just become noticed and he may get more articles written about him in the near future and deleting this page would mean having to start from scratch again. Ryry  rules  100  T C 20:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - sounds like Crystal ball to me. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP he was described in a local paper along with a bunch of other youtubers which was written by a high school senior over a year ago. Also his friends blogged about him! very notable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otterathome (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 December 2009
 * Obviously you of all people should know a mention in a newspaper written by a high school student and blogs from other people do not make him notable.  Kyle  1278  04:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Next, let's delete every wikipedia contribution ever made by a high schooler. The value of that one source should be considered for what it is.--Milowent (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it is considered a good reference one note in a newspaper dose not make him pass N.  Kyle  1278  20:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ANYBIO #1: person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. (won the Open Web Award) and #2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (2 of his channels are on the Youtube Top 25 Most Subscribed.) TomCat4680 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:ANYBIO criteria #1; he has won an Open Web Award, which is notable by WP standards. The article needs more sources to convince me to solid keep. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 09:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Quick reality check here: winning an Open Web Award is a sign of popularity, not notability. Two examples:
 * WP:Articles for deletion/VOIS.com - the company won an Open Web Award, but it didn't stop the article from being deleted.
 * As seen at WP:Articles for deletion/Abridged series and WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 18, winnining an Open Web Award didn't keep an article (under many different titles) from being deleted and salted.
 * If you look at the 2009 awards, there were fifty winners. Not all the winners are notable, and the way to tell is, "Which ones got coverage by verifiable reliable sources?" In this case, the answer is clear. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per DoriSmith. I realize this is not a popular option, but we judge notability not on popularity but on the treatment and amount of non-trivial coverage received from multiple third party outlets.  Perhaps in a year or two this subject will actually receive said treatment from reliable publications, but for the time being it fails to meet notability standards as Wikipedia defines them.  JBsupreme (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2009 (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.